posted
From the wiki page on Carrier Battle Groups:
quote:CVBGs have no definitive specification and are formed and dissolved on an ad-hoc basis, and one may be different from another.
I agree they usually include subs (maybe even almost always), but it's not a requirement. I saw a page recently (which I'm having trouble locating right now) listing carrier deployments over the last five years, and IIRC there were some deployments without subs attached.
<edit>Ah, here it is. Caveat, these are CSG deployments, not CVGBs.</edit>
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It probably depends on the other attached ships. Destroyers are designed with ASW as an essential component. If there were a few advanced Destroyers, enough to cover the required area, they might have figured they didn't need one.
Or there were subs in the area (not a surprise) and they didn't see an urgent need.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
How surprising would it be to have a real "enemy" sub get within 5 miles of any US Navy battle group? Is someone likely to get "in trouble" for failing to detect this sub (assuming that's what happened)?
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, a diesel/electric sub is VERY hard to detect on battery power, moreso than some of the better nuclear powered variety (fewer moving parts). It sounds like this model sub has some features to make it even quieter (like rubber tiles on the hull to deaden the sounds further). Since the Navy officials stated they were not 'actively' sub-hunting, there were probably no helicopters up, which can listen with sonar that get dipped in the water or lay out a net of buoys that can do the same. There are also planes that fly off the carrier that can search for large masses of metal below the ocean surface. For early warning, typically two ships are stationed ou in the direction where a threat is most likely to come from, using overwatch techniques to ensure one of them is always creeping along to listen for subs/watch for planes and cruise missiles.
Now, some or all of this may not have been happening if they were not 'actively' searching. If they were moving at a decent clip that makes it even harder to listen. AND if they happened to sail fairly close to the sub so it could sneak up on battery, you can see where this is possible. I don't think they'll be too happy about this as 5 miles is within torpedo range for that class of submarine (unless aspectre is right and they let them get that close on purpose).
Posts: 5422 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I just checked out the Kitty Hawk's home page. The top entry:
quote:USS KITTY HAWK, At sea – During the Japanese Maritime Self-Defense Force (JMSDF) and U.S. Navy exercise ANNUALEX 18G, ships and aircraft will be focusing on anti-submarine warfare training.
To me, this makes China's action more provocative (and potentially more troubling). I guess the training exercise hadn't started yet, but the existence of the exercise makes it appear more likely to me that China chose its timing deliberately in order to test the USN defensive abilities.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
What makes them think the US would let on, even if they had or hadn't detected it?
US subs used to routinely followed Soviet subs around the Pacific, either to keep tabs on them, or to constantly train.
They rarely did anything provocative to let them know anyone was following them, or to let on to their capabilities. One notable example to the contrary was when (and I haven't the faintest idea when they did it), all the US subs in the Pac following a Soviet sub pinged them all at the same time, which I imagine scared the crap out of the Russians for a little while. Now THAT's provoking a reaction, especially during the Cold War.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Training exercises are far from unheard of. That isn't anything new that they are going to do one.
Posts: 2208 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
What I meant was choosing to use a sub to sneak up during (or just prior to) an anti-sub training exercise is pretty audacious, relatively speaking.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
