| Submit your comments on this article |
| India-Pakistan |
| IAF Jaguars ‘sink’ USS Nimitz, F-18s return the favour to INS Viraat |
| 2007-09-08 |
| ON BOARD USS Kitty Hawk (150 miles west of Port Blair), September 7: As the small green dots approached closer on the radar screen, the Indian officer sitting deep inside USS Nimitz knew it was too late to save the ship. Jaguar maritime fighters of the Indian Air Force (IAF), operating from the Car Nicobar air base, had managed to come dangerously within striking range to successfully launch anti-ship missiles on the super carrier. The IAF registered its first “kill” of the day — none less than the mighty nuclear powered Nimitz with its compliment of 85 fighters. But the young officer, on a cross attachment to the US ship, barely had time to feel proud. The battle had begun in earnest and the target now was India’s lone aircraft carrier. INS Viraat, however, proved easy meat for the joint striking force of US F-18 Super Hornets and IAF Jaguars with the American fighters deliberately flying over the ship to drive home their air-superiority skills. With the five-nation Malabar 07-2 naval exercise entering its final two days today, the buzzword on board the Kitty Hawk — the US carrier coordinating the 30-warship mock battle — was the level of “interoperability” achieved by the participating Navies of India, US, Australia, Japan and Singapore. From tracking and destroying a nuclear submarine, operating three aircraft carriers in close proximity, managing air traffic for over 200 aircraft spread over just 150 X 200 km (roughly the size of airspace between Mumbai and Pune), supporting an amphibious assault to taking on a deep-sea terror threat and tackling piracy, the five countries jointly carried out pretty much the entire range of modern maritime operations. “We didn’t just get a chance to operate together but also the opportunity to assess our own capabilities by comparing them with the latest technology in the world,” says Vice Admiral R P Suthan, commander in chief of the strategic Eastern Command, who is the “tactical commander” for the mock battle over the next two days. The location is less than 200 miles from the Chinese listening post in Coco Islands and touches the strategic Malacca Straits. But the US is quick to deny that this is an alliance to contain the military might of the Asian economic giant. “This has not been put together as a signal against anyone. It is meant to bring Naval professionals together to practise,” Vice Admiral William Crowder, Commander of the Seventh fleet, the largest forward deployed fleet of the US Navy, told reporters on board the super carrier. The war game is scheduled to culminate in a final mock battle involving all battleships over the weekend. The detailed scenario has not been revealed but is likely to be an intense air-dominated battle fought between two divided groups of the flotilla. However, USS Nimitz, which headed home today after reaching the end of its deployment period, will be missed by the Indian fighters. |
| Posted by:john frum |
| #11 boy, guess the Carriers're doomed in any battle. We should scuttle them now in the face of an uncertain enemy, rather than face the loss of those planes and sailors. What the hell were we thinking? |
| Posted by: Frank G 2007-09-08 15:47 |
| #10 Carriers are extremely thin-skinned; minimal armor and much more filled with things that go boom, like jet fuel, than the average warship. That's why they put them in the middle of the formation. Not that that helps a lot these days. |
| Posted by: Adm. Noguchi1179 2007-09-08 15:42 |
| #9 You don't have to sink a carrier to render it ineffective. Major damage to the flight deck, so that it can't launch or recover aircraft, will make it unusable. I agree with Cheaderhead - although a carrier by itself is very vulnerable, carriers never travel alone. They are at the center of a wide set of defensive rings, including their own combat air patrol. |
| Posted by: Rambler 2007-09-08 13:44 |
| #8 How many Jaguars? What weapons load? What were the wargames ROE? Given the element of surprise I think a small force of aircraft might be able to take out a carrier as an effective waepons system but I have my doubts about the current generation of anti ship missiles being able to sink a Nimitz class carrier. A major difference in WWII between US and IJN carriers was damage control. And given the accidents that have happened on US carriers in the past does anybody really think the USN has forgotten the experience. Also the USNs carriers have the layered defense of the entire battle group. The F-18s, Standard SAMs, the R2D2s plus the newer point defense missiles coming on line |
| Posted by: Cheaderhead 2007-09-08 13:10 |
| #7 I wonder what PLAAN doctrine is for dealing with US carriers. I heard some threats about just dropping a tactical nuke over the carrier task force and attacking whatever survived. I don't think the Chicoms are that reckless. That could certainly take out the TF, but I don't think they'd like the counterpunch. |
| Posted by: xbalanke 2007-09-08 11:40 |
| #6 It sounds like all had fun. :-) |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2007-09-08 11:20 |
| #5 I wonder what PLAAN doctrine is for dealing with US carriers. I heard some threats about just dropping a tactical nuke over the carrier task force and attacking whatever survived. |
| Posted by: Jonathan 2007-09-08 10:46 |
| #4 carriers are just huge targets, left over from another age. Carriers have always been huge, vulnerable targets, and defense of a carrier task force has always been the hardest problem in naval warfare. I just finished a biography of Admiral Frank Jack Fletcher (Black Shoe Carrier Admiral), and one of the things that jumped out at me was just how aware everyone was in 1942, even before the carriers engaged in combat, of just how vulnerable an aircraft carrier is. Props to the Car Nicobar squadron for an attack well-executed, and here's hoping somebody learns something in the AAR. If getting "sunk" in an exercise helps prevent us losing a carrier in real life, I'm all for it. |
| Posted by: Mike 2007-09-08 09:45 |
| #3 Is there really an air to surface missile that can sink a monster carrier like the Nimitz? |
| Posted by: Free Radical 2007-09-08 09:43 |
| #2 The more we [USA] can steadily build ties and business with India the better. I can't think of any more important interests between us than our Defense agreements which are mutualy beneficial to both of us. The avarage bloke/civilian/tax-payer never realizes how important War-Gaming, Manuvers and “interoperability” is for large and small defense establishments. Let the War Games begin! For the Navies of India, USA, Australia, Japan and Singapore... The more we [USA] can steadily build ties and business with India the better.... That also goes for mutual Defense contracts, Aircraft, Naval, Civilian Ships, Electronics, Communications, Satellites, the whole shooting match. and DUMP PAKISTAN yesterday... ~:) |
| Posted by: Red Dawg 2007-09-08 07:34 |
| #1 Yup, carriers are just huge targets, left over from another age. We'll be shocked by this fact whenever the next big shooting war starts. Antiship missiles are just too effective. |
| Posted by: gromky 2007-09-08 07:23 |