Article

2007-09-08 India-Pakistan

IAF Jaguars sink USS Nimitz, F-18s return the favour to INS Viraat

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by john frum 2007-09-08 00:00|| || Front Page|| [7 views ] Top

#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|| 2007-09-08 07:23|| Front Page Top

#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...[New Zealand if they can ever recover from Nuke shock] just as long as China and Pak-land sucks bilge water..

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">Red Dawg 2007-09-08 07:34|| 2007-09-08 07:34|| Front Page Top

#3 Is there really an air to surface missile that can sink a monster carrier like the Nimitz?

Posted by Free Radical">Free Radical 2007-09-08 09:43|| 2007-09-08 09:43|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2007-09-08 09:45|| Front Page Top

#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">Jonathan 2007-09-08 10:46|| 2007-09-08 10:46|| Front Page Top

#6 It sounds like all had fun. :-)

Posted by trailing wife 2007-09-08 11:20|| 2007-09-08 11:20|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2007-09-08 11:40|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2007-09-08 13:10|| Front Page Top

#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">Rambler 2007-09-08 13:44|| 2007-09-08 13:44|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2007-09-08 15:42|| Front Page Top

#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">Frank G 2007-09-08 15:47|| 2007-09-08 15:47|| Front Page Top

23:58 Sherry
23:53 3dc
23:47 Themp de Medici6050
23:45 trailing wife
23:41 trailing wife
23:34 Zenster
23:21 trailing wife
23:06 JSU
23:06 Zenster
23:04 trailing wife
23:01 Fred
23:00 Zenster
22:47 Sherry
22:32 tu3031
22:23 trailing wife
22:22 Zenster
22:19 gromgoru
22:14 Zenster
22:11 Zenster
22:05 Zhang Fei
22:04 Zenster
22:02 trailing wife
21:49 Zenster
21:47 Zenster