Hello all, I’m wondering how realistic the attach on the aircraft carrier in the above movie is. Being a Hollywood film, I assuming it’s not realistic.l, but figured I’d ask.

It seems to me the Russian planes sure got close before launching.

This is one of the reasons, the U.S. Navy eliminated the dark blue filters of all Carrier Strike Groups (CSG).

No more sneaking up in broad daylight under the cover of darkness.

Nope.

That attack has been Russian, and now Chinese, plan for a long time. But it likely wouldn't be nearly as easy as the movie depicted it.

Its Hollywood's depiction of what 'they think' an attack on a carrier would look like. I'm trying to remember the plot point of this but, wasn't it a Russian general goes rogue and orders the attack?

Consider the general populace thinks that carrier battle groups steam around the ocean in tight, little formations; there's still a lot of people that think aircraft carriers deploy by themselves . Most people have no clue how integrated a battle group is, what electronic warfare is, how an AEW aircraft work, how fast an aircraft carrier can move, never mind there would've been a BARCAP (Barrier Combat Air Patrol) available to intercept the bombers before they could launch or, at the least disrupt them on the way to their launch point.

The entire premise of the attack in the movie was a stretch, IMO.

The carrier group was REALLY CLOSE to Russia. It's likely the US carrier groups are nowhere near TU-22M3 (Backfire C) range.

Now, IF it were close enough, the attack was a 'sucker punch,' catching the US Navy off guard. I can't recall the exact series of events, as it's been years since I've seen it. But, Russia would have a MUCH better chance of pulling off this kind of attack in peacetime than if tensions were heightened and the Navy was prepared for such an eventuality. In the book, they had Soviet tanks attack a US garrison in East Berlin; of course, that was no longer a viable scenario after 1990.

I always thought it was a cool scene, basically recreating the attack on the US carrier group steaming to Iceland in the book Red Storm Rising. The visuals were cool, but I wouldn't put a lot of stock in it. I imagine the first priority was to "Make It Look Cool," and any historical accuracy is coincidental. . .

It's been a long time since I've read the book so I forget the story. But I have served on a carrier, the Big E.

On normal cruising, the carrier sits in the middle of a perimeter with escort ships out in the horizon, it's own airborne early warning and control planes flying above, and at least one, maybe two submarines below. No one's going to do a sneak attack on a carrier.

The only times the Big E didn't travel like this was when it was a rush to go to a hot spot and it outran its escorts.

quote:

Originally posted by Rey HRH:
It's been a long time since I've read the book so I forget the story. But I have served on a carrier, the Big E.

On normal cruising, the carrier sits in the middle of a perimeter with escort ships out in the horizon, it's own airborne early warning and control planes flying above, and at least one, maybe two submarines below. No one's going to do a sneak attack on a carrier.

The only times the Big E didn't travel like this was when it was a rush to go to a hot spot and it outran its escorts.

If this is true, then how did the USS Kitty Hawk and the Victor class sub Petropavlovsk collide in the Sea of Japan in 1984? It seems like a sneak attack would be easy if you’re close enough for a collision.

quote:

Originally posted by sigcrazy7:

quote:

Originally posted by Rey HRH:
It's been a long time since I've read the book so I forget the story. But I have served on a carrier, the Big E.

On normal cruising, the carrier sits in the middle of a perimeter with escort ships out in the horizon, it's own airborne early warning and control planes flying above, and at least one, maybe two submarines below. No one's going to do a sneak attack on a carrier.

The only times the Big E didn't travel like this was when it was a rush to go to a hot spot and it outran its escorts.

If this is true, then how did the USS Kitty Hawk and the Victor class sub Petropavlovsk collide in the Sea of Japan in 1984? It seems like a sneak attack would be easy if you’re close enough for a collision.

if the sub was sitting on the bottom not underway, it would be hard to detect unless actively pinging or magnetometers in use.

The biggest threat to a CVN is a swarm of silkworms or exocet style sea-skimming anti-ship cruise missiles. The battle group can handle smaller numbers just fine but where the limit of our doctrine and technical capabilites lie are certainly closely held data.

The movie's probably as accurate as a movie from that time period can be made to be.

However, Backfire bombers are not stealth. Backfires are easily detectible from the ship, unless sea-skimming at high speeds. If E-2 Hawkeye aircraft are airborne, the Backfires can be easily seen, even if down on the water. Russian anti-ship missiles are long-range and very potent, especially the Kh-32. The USN has worried about Backfire bombers for years. That's one of the reasons the F-14 Tomcat and its long-range Phoenix missiles stayed in service for so long.

My overriding concern is that our carriers are often thought to be invincible, and that the safety net will fully protect a flattop.

I'm skeptical. I worry about saturation of our carriers' defenses, especially with hypersonic missiles. Some at the USN Institute say that the carrier fleet has no defense against the Kh-32.

https://www.usni.org/magazines...omber-threat-us-navy

Worrisome.

There are "eyes on" all sorties generated, and maintenance prep, ops tempo always monitored, and the "quickening of the pulse" is noticed well in advance of aircraft taking off.

So, aircraft will be monitored well before they ever near a CSG. And actions will be taken to increase monitoring and movement of assets to enable countering.

No one is going to mount a Hollywood sneak attack, but the surface to surface/ship scenario is a greater threat, however, even that has its own "normal" operational "activity level" of command and control, maintenance and such operation.

The "big picture" has a tremendous amount of people watching, assessing, and interpreting what is going on at any given moment.

It's complicated, and complex.

And that is going on very aged knowledge and experience, which is a most perishable thing.

I am more concerned about the ineptitude of the administration and leadership on our side, failing, than I am concerned about any enemy making a strike.

Sad, that I often feel like I fell through the looking glass...

Yeah, that thread about what decade I would like to be "stuck in"? Perhaps I now have an idea.

Thanks for that, thumperfbc. Now I might not fall asleep so fast tonight.

Oy...

quote:

Originally posted by sigmonkey:
There are "eyes on" all sorties generated, and maintenance prep, ops tempo always monitored, and the "quickening of the pulse" is noticed well in advance of aircraft taking off.

So, aircraft will be monitored well before they ever near a CSG. And actions will be taken to increase monitoring and movement of assets to enable countering.

No one is going to mount a Hollywood sneak attack, but the surface to surface/ship scenario is a greater threat, however, even that has its own "normal" operational "activity level" of command and control, maintenance and such operation.

The "big picture" has a tremendous amount of people watching, assessing, and interpreting what is going on at any given moment.

It's complicated, and complex.

And that is going on very aged knowledge and experience, which is a most perishable thing.

I am more concerned about the ineptitude of the administration and leadership on our side, failing, than I am concerned about any enemy making a strike.

Sad, that I often feel like I fell through the looking glass...

Yeah, that thread about what decade I would like to be "stuck in"? Perhaps I now have an idea.

Thanks for that, thumperfbc. Now I might not fall asleep so fast tonight.

Oy...

My pleasure, Mr Monkey.

I’m home sick today and watched the movie and figured I’d ask for an education.

I had to watch that scene again.

The Russians send a bunch of bombers out to attack an aircraft carrier. One radar guy on the aircraft carrier sees a blip, calls over an officer and tells the officer he saw something then it was gone. They both see the blip again and then the Russian bombers launch some missiles. Some of the missiles get through the Gatling guns and strike the ship.

From what I’m reading in this thread, that wouldn’t happen in real life because other ships and/or aircraft of ours would have picked up the bombers well before the bombers got that close. Not only that, but the launching of the bombers would have been noticed and monitored as soon as they left their hangers.

I don't believe it to be very accurate.

First, there would be a E-2 Hawkeye up doing Airborne Early Warning. It would have detected the Backfires far out, the CAP (Combat Air Patrol) would have been sent to intercept and all ships would have gone to General Quarters. Carrier would have put up additional fighters/interceptors as fast as it could.

Second, the carrier is surrounded by a screening group, cruisers, destroyers and frigates, all equipped with missles. Ok in that era there wouldn't have been any Arleigh Burkes but their would have been a Ticonderoga Class AEGIS cruiser or two plus some OHP Frigates. Both have missles to intecept inbound missles. Last ditch defense would be the CIWS guns and things like Chaff and Flares.

While enemy aircraft do present a threat to a carrier air group, enemy submarines present the greatest threat....

I'm absolutely no expert in this field, nor did I ever serve in the US Military.

However, I think the newest trick on the block will be China having some sort of missiles or weapons in Space, either in satellites or manned space craft, that will be in the right position at the right time to launch a very powerful carrier killer. I think that could be a very short flight time with very little reaction time available to counter.

You can't trust the chinese, at all, and you must respect and honor the threat presented or unpresented from them if they decided to kick things off. Don't take them for granted, they are very intelligent and motivated and will be well trained, highly sophisticated little bastards.
.

I’m of the opinion that we have more to fear from hypersonic missiles than an attack from any aircraft. Something moving at @5X the speed of sound would be to hard to interdict. Multiple bogies would be near impossible.

quote:

Originally posted by OKCGene:
I'm absolutely no expert in this field, nor did I ever serve in the US Military.

However, I think the newest trick on the block will be China having some sort of missiles or weapons in Space, either in satellites or manned space craft, that will be in the right position at the right time to launch a very powerful carrier killer.

Don't over think it. If you want to sink a ship, particularly a capitol ship, you use a submarine. All the 'carrier killer missiles' are simply a distraction. Fortunately, the PLAN submarines are still a generation behind Western subs however, they're learning fast, developing AIP propulsion and learning tactics. Their ability to conduct maintenance will be the crux of things.

^^^
Yep.

My cousin was nook bubblehead...

With the increased threats that you have all have been talking about, it makes me wonder if it is time to start re-thinking carrier doctrine? For instance, would it make more sense to make more smaller carriers like the light carriers or even the escort carriers from WW2? Obviously, they would be easier to sink but you would have to sink more of them? I’ve also wondered if it is time to develop a new carrier class that is armored so as to better protect it from that inevitable missile that will get through? I’m not talking a battleship type of carrier but a class similar to the British armored carriers of WW2 only updated for modern threats.

IIRC, at the end of WW2, we had around 27 fleet carriers or twice as many as we have today. While they were much smaller than the current super carrier, I wonder if more armored fleet type carriers would be better able to preserve our abilities in the event of a war with the CCP or Russia? Obviously, we have manpower and operating costs associated with more ships, but from what I have read, the new British QE Class can launch more sorties per day than the Nimitz class. So I would think we could design a more efficient but smaller class? And, maybe it is time to become radical and develop a fleet carrier with a launch deck similar to the QE class the British just launched which should keep costs down and the complexities down as well. And, with the new landing process the British have developed for the F35B, the standard limitations for a deck launch have been significantly curtailed.

quote:

Originally posted by BB61:
With the increased threats that you have all have been talking about, it makes me wonder if it is time to start re-thinking carrier doctrine? For instance, would it make more sense to make more smaller carriers like the light carriers or even the escort carriers from WW2?

Yes, that's already being worked on. At issue is finding the sweet-spot between efficiency in engineering, size and usefulness of the air wing and adjusting doctrine.

quote:

I’ve also wondered if it is time to develop a new carrier class that is armored so as to better protect it from that inevitable missile that will get through? I’m not talking a battleship type of carrier but a class similar to the British armored carriers of WW2 only updated for modern threats.

Armored carriers means armored flight decks, not thick belt armor around the hull; some had a modest belt but, wasn't made for slugging out a gun fight. US Carriers (like UK carriers in WWII) already have armored flight decks, and there's an endless number of voids in the hull to mitigate battle damage and flood control. You can roll-out a Yamato-sized armor belt on a ship, modern warheads will slice-through it. While having a certain degree of protection and robustness is necessary, double-hulls and voids are the better option to mitigating modern weapons and managing weight constraints.

quote:

Obviously, we have manpower and operating costs associated with more ships, but from what I have read, the new British QE Class can launch more sorties per day than the Nimitz class.

With such a tiny air wing, it's quite easy to launch/recover a high volume of aircraft, whereas a US carrier has a much larger air wing to manage; conversely a US air wing can bring a whole lot more combat power, over a prolonged period of time, with a broader variety of capabilities. The UK air wing has limited AEW, no electronic warfare platform and no in-flight refueling. After this maiden deployment, the RN is going to take a very hard look at their air wing composition and go to their defense heads and ask for more capability.

quote:

So I would think we could design a more efficient but smaller class? And, maybe it is time to become radical and develop a fleet carrier with a launch deck similar to the QE class the British just launched which should keep costs down and the complexities down as well. And, with the new landing process the British have developed for the F35B, the standard limitations for a deck launch have been significantly curtailed.

Again, you need to find that sweet-spot between engineering, air wing composition and doctrine. Conventional carriers used up A LOT of space for intake/exhaust duct work for its main propulsion along with massive fuel tanks which sacrificed airplane fuel. The UK carrier made a design compromise by moving its turbines ABOVE the waterline, below each of the islands, this free'd up space for more fuel and magazine capacity deep in the hull. That would never happen in a USN ship design citing damage control concerns, all engineering, weapons and flammables go below the waterline. There's a lot of automation in the UK carrier, again, something the USN is loathe to do, citing simplicity and redundancy to manage damage control.

One proposal is re-designing the Wasp-class ships the USN has, they are currently designed to put Marines ashore not project power via their limited air wing; also its hull-form isn't suited for launching fixed-wing aircraft. The magazine sizes on those ships are also very small, sustaining a combat tempo would require weapons replenishment almost every other day, whereas a Nimitz-class could go without a weapons replenishment up to three weeks if doing sustained, daily cyclic operations.

If the US was to design a new, but smaller carrier, one that can operate current aircraft in a functional air wing but, attempt to keep costs and complexity under control, it would likely be the size of the USS Midway or France's Charles de Gaulle.

I’d think that the aircraft being launched from our carriers have gotten bigger and heavier than the aircraft in WW2, perhaps by a large margin. I wonder how much smaller we could make carriers and still have them effectively carry current generation aircraft?