Posted on 03/05/2015 5:57:38 PM PST by sukhoi-30mki
Unexpected victor ... The 30-year-old French nucler powered attack submarine Saphir. Source: Wikipedia Source: Supplied
WITH a good submarine, a navy can do amazing things. Ask the French. Theyve just managed to sink a nuclear-powered US super carrier and half its battle group.
The French Ministry of Defence has revealed one of its attack submarines pulled of an astounding upset during recent war-games in the North Atlantic.
The Aviationist blog spotted an article on the French defence forces website quickly withdrawn which told how one of their submarines, the Saphir tackled the might of the United States navy off the coast of Florida.
Formidable force ... The aircraft carrier USS Theodore Roosevelt with a protecive force of cruisers, destroyers and frigates. A recent exercise saw this expansive, and expensive, defence force bypassed by a French submarine. Source: USN Source: Supplied
At the core of the surface force was the enormous aircraft carrier USS Theodore Roosevelt and its powerful strike wing of 90 combat aircraft and helicopters.
Clustered protectively about it was several advanced cruisers and destroyers, and its own guardian submarine.
In one element of the war games, the Saphir was tasked with the role of being the bad guy.
Its mission: To seek, locate and exterminate the US naval force.
The exact details of how it achieved this embarrassing outcome is not known.
Somehow, the French submarine must have been able to slip between the defensive sensor patchwork of patrol aircraft, helicopters, warships and submarines to line up a shot on the $13 billion monstrosity.
There she lurked as a fictitious political crisis evolved in the world above.
On the final day of the exercise, the order finaly came.
Sink the Theodore Roosevelt.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.com.au ...
DO NOT BELIEVE IT.
According to the ‘experts’ here at FR we spend more money than ANY OTHER COUNTRY on the military, therefore we CANNOT BE DEFEATED. They use that ‘rationale’ to justify why we are able to continue to goad Russia and China into WW3 (and still win), while continuing to GUT our military spending at the same time.
Always does - but it wasn't part of that "game" scenario or the French sub would never have gotten in range.
(I cannot beleive that a French sub could out-fox even an older Los Angeles-class attack sub).
What would happen to that base day one in a hot war?
I remember the stories the US Navy leased the latest Swedish submarine with Air Independent Propulsion, super quiet, including the crew. The Swedes time and time again were able to penetrate the ASW screen and take a picture of the carrier with the periscope. The reason the Navy in interested in low frequency sonar, which the enviros claim harm marine mammals, is to aid in the detection of these ultra-quiet subs.
Some quick points about that picture you posted.
It’s of the USS Wasp (CV-7) after bring struck by the torpedo that sunk her during the Guadalcanal campaign.
Wasp was a very odd duck of a carrier. Her design was intended to put the most aircraft onto a hull that used up the remaining 15,000 or so tons alloyed to carriers under the Washington treaty.
While she was well built, she had all sorts of design shortcuts to meet the tonnage restrictions. Limited compartmentalization. Inadequate torpedo protection. Limited reserve bouyency. An asymetric hull to allow the starboard side island. Two shafts, not four, with a reduction in machinery that limited her to about 29 knots speed.
A lot of people call her a “smaller Yorktown”, but in reality she was a marginally improved Ranger. She had no business being in the Pacific, but the USN had no other options given the early war attrition of the other carriers. Yes, the Japanese sub got lucky ... but her loss can be directly attributed to her design issues, given that carriers built before her (Saratoga) and after her (Yorktown and Hornet) either took worse torpedo hits and survived, or took worse hits before sinking.
I wonder what the writer thinks about the military? /s
They probably rigged it to remove some of the screening ships. Probably trying to justify eliminating more ships from the fleet.
I also think, being a multi-national exercise, some of the screening ships were probably ... French.
How many cases of Chardonnay would it take for the skipper of a French destroyer or frigate to “inadvertanly look in the wrong direction” so his good friend the submarine skipper could get a nifty picture of a US CVN taken by his periscope camera?
“Why Jacques, that is a lovely picture you took of the American port-avions. I can’t believe I only charged you a case of the ‘74 for it!”
“Merci Jean-Claude! Oui, you should have held out for the ‘68. Its a much better vintage!”
Same thing that would happen to all our based on day one in a hot war. What’s your point? Ships based in a port are not necessarily in that port 24/7.
Stuff happens in war, and sometimes the enemy gets lucky. Heck, the Japanese had one of the best runs of dumb luck in history from December 1941 to June 1942.
It should be noted that of the seven fleet carriers we had at the start of World War II, four were sunk and two had taken significant damage resulting in yard time by the end of 1942. (Ranger was kept well way from the Pacific...)
Carriers are important, indeed critical to our defense, they are well protected and difficult to sink. But not impossible, and we need to prepare for the worst when planning for war.
They are a means to an end—finding unquestioned assumptions that render a strategy ( with undetected flaw )dangerous. Competition inspires genius (and bragging rights). Rough on the ego, but can you counter the move?
Care to translate your warrior speak so everyone who was never in the navy might understand?
Only if you actually learn from the exercise. The Obama Navy doesn’t seem to be able to.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.