Russian invasion of Ukraine

Ive often wondered how hard it would be for a super power to sink an aircraft carrier.
Just from a regular joes perspective it would seem impossible for carriers to defend properly against a pack of subs (much like ww2 i guess).

How would that work today, im thinking its illogical for US and others to have such massive carriers if they were sitting ducks to subs but perhaps they are and they still employ them as thats the only way to move your striking force around the world in a reasonable fast manner?

They have a lot of support vessels for protection.
https://science.howstuffworks.com/carrier-group.htm

I don’t have any knowledge about the subject except a documentary on tv last night. The carrier travels with a number of ships - Northumberland being the one in the programme. It would appear that a carrier could be susceptible to attack without the surrounding ships providing defence. I suppose a carrier is for aircraft and not really an offensive ship itself hence the need for support.
My 2p.

I suspect carriers can only be used against countries which don't have subs or the latest anti-ship missiles. They are for projecting power, but only when your enemy is weak.

Russia is having an unexpected shocker on the body bag front.

Then again, do they really have mobile crematoriums? https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/17772009/russias-mobile-crematoriums-incinerate-dead-soldiers-ukraine/

Just from a regular joes perspective it would seem impossible for carriers to defend properly against a pack of subs

An aircraft carrier will be accompanied by its own subs and destroyers for that reason.

Yeah i get that its not just the carrier on its own its just that its such a massive warmachine with an infinte cost and easy to track compared to subs. I obv have no idea about these things just strikes me that it would be worth it to launch an attack even knowing you may loose a sub or 2.

Its like sinking a city. Saw a sum of close to 17 billion USD for the cost of one and im not even sure that includes the planes and weapons it carries.

Perhaps moving it in a convey is enough to keep it safe it just seems like the nature of oceans and the sneakiness of modern subs would make it vunerable.

sneakiness of modern subs would make it vunerable.

Modern subs are sneaky as far as passive sonar is concerned. However, I'd assume aircraft carriers and destroyers would be using active sonar as they're not at all sneaky. In which case it should fairly easy to spot an enemy sub approaching.

"Active sonar sends out acoustic sounds, or “pings,” which can reach thousands of yards. If the ping bounces back, that means it hit an object—like a whale, a ship, or another submarine. But stealth subs often avoid active sonar, since the ping could give away their location"

Had to read a little and found an interesting article about a swedish sub that trained with the us fleet for a long time. This was 2005 so long time ago but at this time the conclusion was that the us was not trained in locating and detecting these smaller subs like the Gotland class as the cold war had made the threat about large nuclear subs . The interviewed person in the article concludes that they told the americans that they would have been able to sink ships before they were detected but they us were getting better and better as training and time passed.

US marines are trialling swarming drone grenades right now
https://youtu.be/LJ2WxyCEoXk

Sending in a Boston Dynamic robot dog thing carrying those will be next, and after that Cyberdyne Systems T-800 will just be a hop skip and a jump away.

bbc4 on now (and likely on iplayer) ‘the distant barking of dogs’
year in the life of a Ukrainian boy during the war in Donbas.

If a full-on world war happens, carriers could be sunk by ballistic or hypersonic missiles. But they probably would survive, because the world war would start with an exchange of ICBMs to destroy cities. So maybe the people in the shelters wouldn't bother to press the buttons to kill the carriers? If the carriers were moving they probably wouldn't even try...better to expend the missiles on land targets with known locations. So maybe carriers would be safe places to be? The crews could take on the responsibility of repopulating the earth. Just as well that there are now women serving on them.

But if MAD holds good, there will no nuclear war, and carriers will continue to be a great way to project power and to attack countries which don't have nukes. They've done this very well in the past. US carriers have been killing people all around the world for many years, and nobody's sunk one yet. The attack on the Cole gave pause for thought. It came close to sinking her. But a carrier, being so much bigger, with so many more watertight compartments, would be many times harder to sink than the Cole.

Ukraine's hero sniper is from Canada. https://twitter.com/ArmedForcesUkr/status/1506692184086560768 I wonder if it's one of the many record-setting Canadians https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longest_recorded_sniper_kills

https://twitter.com/CosmoWenman/status/1502447161044131843

source

Think I read somewhere that he’s top 3/5 or something on longest confirmed kill

Edit: googled and it was wrong. He’s still badass though.

Cyberdyne Systems T-800 will just be a hop skip and a jump away.

Already here but not how you think. If you haven't listened to this, you should.
Stuart Russell AI in Warfare
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m00127t9

The crews could take on the responsibility of repopulating the earth

I'm not sure the ratio of males to females will be as envisaged by Herr Doktor. Carriers should be stocked with m to f transition kits.

reading up page had me wondering when an earnest ‘mineshaft gap’ discussion would start. Looks like we’re here : /

Everything in that film seems very plausible now, except for Slim Pickens riding his bomb like a rodeo horse.

Listened to many, many hours of this guy’s in depth history of the Isreal-Palestine situation. He’s done a one-off on Ukraine. A well researched run down with a very different slant to the mass media story. This has probably all been covered here but interesting none the less.

https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/th­e-martyrmade-podcast/id978322714?i=10005­53897203

I listened to this, and also to a couple of his others. I only looked into it in a fairly cursory manner, but the guy (Darryl Cooper) appears to have a fairly alt right / Trumpist presence on twitter which makes me uncomfortable in his research and presentation of facts.

Once I found that out I found it quite tricky to listen to because (rightly or wrongly) I don't trust his sources or interpretation - it certainly put me off the Israel / Palestine series.

Ah that’s a shame. I haven’t looked into his politics, just discovered him and the Israel series when looking for a good overview / background. FWIW if Trump is pro Israel Cooper isn’t towing the line in this case. His general theme is us and French fucked it from the start.

Has anyone on this thread served in the Army, Navy or Air Force as there seem to be a lot of people who are informed about various things ?