Modern Carrier Battle Group..Strategies and Tactics

Welcome to the board!

That sounds very like the scenario in Red Storm Rising when a force of Soviet Tu-95 and Tu-16 and Tu-22M bombers attacked a Franco-American carrier force consisting of Nimitz, Saratoga and Foch escorting an amphibious group to Iceland. The task force was located from their radar emissions by the Tu-95's who relayed the information to the strike groups. One group consisted of Tu-16's armed with obsolete Kelt missiles that had radar transponders to make them mimic the Tu-16's. They were launched towards the task group and succeeded in getting a bonehead of an admiral to send all his Tomcats after the Kelts. While they wasted their Phoenix missiles shooting down drones, the Tu-22M's were able to approach and shoot their missiles unopposed. As there was no fighter cover to thin out the incoming missiles, they saturated the escorts and succeed in sinking Foch and severely damaging Nimitz and Saratoga so much that they were out of the war for several weeks.

Your scenario seems very plausible but in real life I don't think the USN would be so obliging as they were in the book, they've probably been through similar scenarios in training. It also showed something that's been discussed earlier in this thread, namely carriers, especially Nimitz class carriers are designed to take a huge amount of punishment and are very difficult to physically sink. But you don't need to sink it, depleting it's airgroup or getting a hit on the flight deck can put a carrier out of action for a time and that can tip the balance in your favour.

Hi duckytank...I'm bd popeye..I actually served on 5 USN CV(N)s. Kennedy, Midway, Hancock, America & Nimitz.

Let's see..

Your scenario seems very plausible but in real life I don't think the USN would be so obliging as they were in the book, they've probably been through similar scenarios in training.

100% correct! The USN is in a constant state of real world training. Almost every possible sceniaro has been planned & trained for.

Modify some old surface to surface/air to surface missiles, remove the warhead and attach some kind of aircraft transponder, the transponder should mimc something big, like a bomber. have alot of these missiles (also if possible attach jamming device)

Unless those missiles have some majical way of fooling radar sensors their true sizes will be reveled. The emmissons from the transponders will be recognized for what they are. Fakes. Those signals cannot 100% duplicate the aircraft they are trying to mimic.

Have one group (30+) bomber or surface plaforms to launch SOME of the dummy missiles at the battle group. Since the battle group have patrol aircraft (AWAC, fighters, etc...) on station the aircraft CIC will divert the fighters to intercept the incoming "bombers" = dummy missiles.

Have another group (40+) launch at another direction, battle group CIC will divert another group of just launch fighters to intercept the "bombers", since the orignal fighters that are up or need refeuling is out of the way

By now the battle group will ether...
move away from the "bombers"
battle group fighters report in shooting at dummies

Won't work. Because they will be recognized as fakes as soon as though transponders signal are decifered as fake. Mere minutes.

Have another group (30+) launch at another direction, and again the battle group CIC will divert another group fighters to intercept the "bombers". The problem is that the battle group CIC will be smarter now, they know that the enemy is trying to draw out its fighters

No it won't. Because the fakes have already been discovered.

This time launch real antiship missiles (Exocet, Silkworm, rocks, whatever etc...) from air platforms(30+/- bombers, fighters). Make sure the to have strong air cover for the platform. The battle group CIC this time will be sure. When launching the missiles, launch the missiles 100+/- meters apart. The reason why is that the battle group radar will see it as one contact. if possible launch 100+/- missiles at a time. (if extra launch also remaining "dummy" missiles)

Aegis, will track shoot down most missles. The ECM emitted by E/A-6B Prowlers and Aegis ships will call cause confusing havoc with any sort of device the PLA may use that relys on electronics. Not to mention the Chaff despensed by USN ships and aircraft.

You also mentioned the USN CVN aircraft would run out of ordance? Do you have any idea how much ordance a USN CV(N) can carry? There is enough ordance on board for 5-7 days of 24 hours around the clock operations. Fuel? Enough aircraft fuel on a CVN for about 5 days of continous operations.

First off the USN will not be duped by any such sceniaro. Period. So from the start your sceniaro is not plausable to me. Would some missiles get through? Maybe. But conventional weapons will not sink a CVN. Mission kill it. Maybe . But sink it? Not in my opinion.

hi

Thanks POPEYE, your points are a real eye opener. Im a neebie at this!, can't join the navy yet!! underage hahah

Today i ponder on it more and found out problems. The scenerio is based on books that i read, borrowed from the libarary and form the internet. Most of the books are based around the 1980ish era. The US navy is now more modern now, especialy, i read this magazine called Janes Defence monthly or Weekly said the US navy upgraded the AEGIS program and the CIWS weapons.
You say you where in the navy cool!!! and a carrier!!! what knid of personal are you? where you a Commander!!!!
Well back on the sinking the carrier thing, the problem was that US Sat. and intel agency will notice a huge build up of weapons on the coast. And if they know, they will keep far away.
Well thanks and to other people who commited

...I hear it requires at least 7 AS-6 Kingfish ASM's or 5 650mm torps....Pretty tall order.....

Originally Posted by dannytoro

...I hear it requires at least 7 AS-6 Kingfish ASM's or 5 650mm torps....Pretty tall order.....

Soviet Naval planners task at least 1 Backfire regiment to have a chance at striking the carrier. If the carrier is caught unawares, then it is in deep trouble. If the Back fire strike is caught before it can launched, it will be destroyed.

As for slowing down a ballistic missile warhead to make it more accurate, it defeats the purpose of using it (high speed making it harder to intercept).

You say you where in the navy cool!!! and a carrier!!! what knid of personal are you? where you a Commander!!!!

No I was not a commander. I just paid attention.

I had many jobs in my 20 year USN career. I was an Avation ordanceman for 11 years.

http://usmilitary.about.com/library/...nth+activities

And a aircrew survail equipmentman for 9 years.

http://usmilitary.about.com/library/...obs2/blpra.htm

Those ratings are very encompassing and I held several jobs performing each.

How do you sink a carrier:

You have a adequately sized and persistent force of long range surveillance platforms in the air. YOu can use passive sensors detecting E2 radars from very long range, to get you a VERY wide search area - for starters. You must have adequately sized and equally persistant force of interceptors on patrol positioned in such ways enemy can't get to your air sensors without getting through interceptors first.

You must have a, yes you guessed it, adequately sized but perhaps not necesarrily as persistant number of long range identification platforms. Depending on your SAR tech level, you might need A LOT of these, in order to get close enough and identitfy and send back data. These will need fighter cover as well of adequate size and/or capability.

You must have a somewhat smaller sized but still equally persistant force of airborne sensors which will continuously track the identified enemy ships. These too have to have enough of a fighter cover to survive.

Finally, you send adequately large force of missile carriers (they can be surface vessels too, but airborne attackers give much less reaction time to the enemy), again protected by adequate number of fighters if needed, which then, provided your misile seeker tech is of decent quality, will eventually wear/tear down the defences and start making damage.

In the end, you might not actually sink the ship...but hey, no one's perfect. Oh, and no, i am not saying any of this is easy. Its not. Its hard, it requries good tech and lots of sacrifices. But that's how you can do it.

Btw, as far as slowed down BMs, that's not so silly as it sounds. I mean, at first you want super speed because of the vast distance to the target. Maybe you can't afford to track the carrier for hours. Maybe you need to get attack going in tens of minutes from identification of the target. Once you're 100 km away/over the target, why not slow down - if that is the only way to assure precision and decent guidance?

Though fast, carrier can't really change direction on top of dime. So, once the BM's warheads have slowed down and adjusted for new trajectories - all of that can be done at several tens of km of altitude, outside of SM-2 ceiling (probably not SM-3, though) warheads can again speed up during the last 30 km fall. Personally, i don't believe its necesarry, it'd just make the waarhead bigger and more complicated, when gravity alone would make it fast enough... Again, key to such attack would be saturation - one can't expect success with one BM and maybe 5-6 warheads.

Originally Posted by Totoro

How do you sink a carrier:

You have a adequately sized and persistent force of long range surveillance platforms in the air. YOu can use passive sensors detecting E2 radars from very long range, to get you a VERY wide search area - for starters. You must have adequately sized and equally persistant force of interceptors on patrol positioned in such ways enemy can't get to your air sensors without getting through interceptors first.

You must have a, yes you guessed it, adequately sized but perhaps not necesarrily as persistant number of long range identification platforms. Depending on your SAR tech level, you might need A LOT of these, in order to get close enough and identitfy and send back data. These will need fighter cover as well of adequate size and/or capability.

You must have a somewhat smaller sized but still equally persistant force of airborne sensors which will continuously track the identified enemy ships. These too have to have enough of a fighter cover to survive.

Finally, you send adequately large force of missile carriers (they can be surface vessels too, but airborne attackers give much less reaction time to the enemy), again protected by adequate number of fighters if needed, which then, provided your misile seeker tech is of decent quality, will eventually wear/tear down the defences and start making damage.

In the end, you might not actually sink the ship...but hey, no one's perfect. Oh, and no, i am not saying any of this is easy. Its not. Its hard, it requries good tech and lots of sacrifices. But that's how you can do it.

You are pretty much describing the basic doctrine of the Soviets...and they could not keep it up. They went bankrupt.

Now, the Chinese economic picture is in better shape, but this doctrine charges directly into the teeth of the US capability, technology and defense.

The US contiues to build its AEGIS defense and capability...but it has slacked off on some of the ASW defense. I still believe that the sub-surface threat to the carrier group is the greatest threat. Using a conventional, saturation air attack as a cover for an equally well orchestrated sub-surface attack may have some chance...but as the Virginia class subs come on line and as the ADCAP LA class and the Virginias continue to be assigned to carrier protection duty...and with the Burkes and Blackhawks are still available in significant numbers...even without the additional Spruances and Viking aircraft, the sub surface defense is also an extremely tough nut to crack when the carrier group is on a war footing.

I do not believe any country is currently capable of waging a successful saturation air attack against a US carrier group that is on a war footing. If they tried, they would lose horrendous numbers of aircraft and then be retaliated against. If they did catch a carrier group sleeping during peace time...there would be hell to pay for whichever country did so.

Originally Posted by Jeff Head

You are pretty much describing the basic doctrine of the Soviets...and they could not keep it up. They went bankrupt.

Its not like the soviets went bankrupt because of trying to get US carriers. That was just one of countless things they tried to achieve, one of countless expensive things. Lets take a country with economy size of US. It surely could afford doing such attacks. Actually, i find that an interesting idea.

Lets pit two us carrier groups, both nimitzes, both having same planes and surface ships against each other. how would the detection and attack process go?

US may have slacked off some on ASW but so have all the potential enemies. No one has a blue water submarine force capable of of that, save for, perhaps, soviets - though they too would suffer a lot of their SSN fleet for trying to get just one carrier group. Maybe French and the British could try... anyone else would be better off with missiles.

It really comes down to efficiency. Who's to say that USN air wing will be able to inflict 10 times bigger losses to the attacker, than suffering themselves at the hand of the same attacker. Maybe the ratio would be closer to 1:2. Or 1:4. Or whatever. Goal justifies the means and the casulties. Horrendous casulties may be seen as justified for achieving the goal of neutralizing a carrier. It depends on the capability of the attacker and overall size of the force. If they lose 90% of their air force in that one attack - of course that was not such a good deal. But maybe they would see a 9% loss as great trade off.

You're all blinded by practicality of the mission. Of course it's hard and impractical. but it could be done.

Another thing that's silly is to fear attacking a carrier because of retaliation. I mean, if you plan to attack, you're already at war. US won't be any easier on you if you don't attack them. Decision about attacking would be made purely based on gain/loss ratio. If you've got relatively little to lose and relatively lot to gain - of course you will attack. That being said, its very hard to imagine a scenario where there'd be little to lose while trying to attack.

Originally Posted by Totoro

US may have slacked off some on ASW but so have all the potential enemies. No one has a blue water submarine force capable of of that, save for, perhaps, soviets - though they too would suffer a lot of their SSN fleet for trying to get just one carrier group. Maybe French and the British could try... anyone else would be better off with missiles.

I disagree. With AIP capabilities, long range SSKs can be deployed in numbers that are very quiet and submerged. They are very dangerous.

Originally Posted by Totoro

It really comes down to efficiency. Who's to say that USN air wing will be able to inflict 10 times bigger losses to the attacker, than suffering themselves at the hand of the same attacker.

You have to get to the carrier first, and to do that you have to find it and then track it to guide your attack force onto it. That will not be easy and the carrier group will be well out to sea, probably beyond the range of your shore based fighters...so any attack aircraft are going to be at extreme risk in any case.

Originally Posted by Totoro

You're all blinded by practicality of the mission. Of course it's hard and impractical. but it could be done.

No, we are just pointing out the very real impracticalities of such a mission. Of course it could be done...but there is a wide margin between could be done, and will be done, or even will be tried.

Originally Posted by Totoro

Another thing that's silly is to fear attacking a carrier because of retaliation. I mean, if you plan to attack, you're already at war. US won't be any easier on you if you don't attack them.

I promise you, the US will be much harder on you if you attack one of their carriers...and ten times as hard as that on you if you happen to sink one or badly damage it. It could well be viewed, irrespective of how you came to accomplish it, as an attack by WMDs since it would kill thousands of Americans and destroy billions of dollars worth of US assets.

Originally Posted by Totoro

That being said, its very hard to imagine a scenario where there'd be little to lose while trying to attack.

Agreed...there would be very much to lose and such an attack would not take place without factoring that loss well into the equation. Most nations could not afford what it would take, or what they would lose in the exchange.

Originally Posted by Jeff Head

I disagree. With AIP capabilities, long range SSKs can be deployed in numbers that are very quiet and submerged. They are very dangerous.

Long range SSK is still pretty short ranged, compared to a SSN. It still lacks power, speed and endurance. It would still need to stumble down to a carrier group, rather than actively seeking one. Yes, AIR is better than no AIP, but hardly turns the whole effort into an efficient carrier hunt.

You have to get to the carrier first, and to do that you have to find it and then track it to guide your attack force onto it. That will not be easy and the carrier group will be well out to sea, probably beyond the range of your shore based fighters...so any attack aircraft are going to be at extreme risk in any case.

Problem with a just sub based force is that it is, in effect, blind. First it has so spend days/weeks/eternity to stumble upon something that sounds like a carrier, then it has little way of telling just how far away that sound is coming from, and to make things worse - sub is all alone. Yes, theoretically, it could broadcast its position to other subs, on a regular and fixed schedule - when all the other subs are in position to exchange data, and with that it's making itself visible. With more subs exchanging data, i imagine it could sort of narrow down the area of the carrier... but with necesarry corrections during time, it only becomes more likely one or more of those near surface subs will be discovered.

I would still think that, in the end, taking the prices of subs and planes into consideration, its more efficient to use airborne attack.

No, we are just pointing out the very real impracticalities of such a mission. Of course it could be done...but there is a wide margin between could be done, and will be done, or even will be tried.

Butofcourse. I've never said anything else. Topic wasnt titled 'is it practical to sink a carrier?' but 'HOW to sink a carrier?' So i just offered one answer to a question.

I promise you, the US will be much harder on you if you attack one of their carriers...and ten times as hard as that on you if you happen to sink one or badly damage it. It could well be viewed, irrespective of how you came to accomplish it, as an attack by WMDs since it would kill thousands of Americans and destroy billions of dollars worth of US assets.

It would be stupid of US to hold back. ''ill attack you evil Iranians with my left hand tied behind my back, thereby endangering my own forces. But if you counterattack - i will use both of my arms!'' One attacks with full force or doesn't at all. Half assed operations never served anyone well. Attacks on iraq's armed forces covered pretty much all there was, save for going for individual soldiers. Yes, they could've done that but it would have proved not cost-effective.

So if US attacks iran and destroys all of its organized armed forces and there's nothing worth destroying left - but iran somehow sinks an US carrier - there is nothing more to do for US, save for getting those launchers which sank the carrier. Yes, they could somehow 'get revenge' and go after every single footsoldier - but that just costs way too much and takes way too long. Not worth it. Or one could carpet bomb a civilian target, which... is just shameful if that happens.

Originally Posted by Totoro

Long range SSK is still pretty short ranged, compared to a SSN. It still lacks power, speed and endurance. It would still need to stumble down to a carrier group, rather than actively seeking one. Yes, AIR is better than no AIP, but hardly turns the whole effort into an efficient carrier hunt.

Sorry, but with AIP, they have very good range, and decent endurance as well. Can't go as long as a nuc without refueling, but they can stay out for plenty long enough for an effective combat patrol/mission. They are not fast and clearly, as has always been the case outside of littoral waters, SSKs would have to lie in wait for oncoming vessels. In many places the options for transit are limited, or, if planning, an agressor can create a situation demanding a certain response and then lie in wait in several of the most likely avenues of approach.

Originally Posted by Totoro

Problem with a just sub based force is that it is, in effect, blind. First it has so spend days/weeks/eternity to stumble upon something that sounds like a carrier, then it has little way of telling just how far away that sound is coming from, and to make things worse - sub is all alone.

Actually modern passive sensors are quite effective, and with low frequency transmission capabilities, comm can be worked out. A characterization of the sub "just stumbling onto" the enemy is a gross understatement of the subs capabilities...and not accurate as well from my perspective, having known many submariners and conversed regularly with them, including my own son in law, and having worked closely in the past with the companies building modern subs, I believe that you are underestimating the capability. Clearly the US is taking it very seriously, leasing a very quiet Swedish gotland class to wargame against and develop effective counters to.

Originally Posted by Totoro

I would still think that, in the end, taking the prices of subs and planes into consideration, its more efficient to use airborne attack.

Given the strength of the AEGIS system and technology...it can be argued otherwise.

Originally Posted by Totoro

Topic wasnt titled 'is it practical to sink a carrier?' but 'HOW to sink a carrier?' So i just offered one answer to a question.

Fair enough, and something I can agree completely with.

Originally Posted by Totoro

It would be stupid of US to hold back. ''ill attack you evil Iranians with my left hand tied behind my back, thereby endangering my own forces. But if you counterattack - i will use both of my arms!''

History from Vietnam on indicates that the US does just this and responds proportionally. The US is doing so now in Iraq. Certainly the US forces are capable of completely flattening towns like Fallujah and not risking any US lives in a house to house pacification of such a place...but the US holds back in an attempt to minimize civilian casualties. Nothing new here. Now, if the citizens as a whole in Fallujah, instead of killing a few Americans were found to have planned and abetted an attack that killed tens of thousands...then the reaction would be different. Same with a carrier battle group and any potential conflict with Iran. Whether everyone believes this is the best or most effective approach is a different matter...it is what the US is doing.

I agree with Popeye,

he knows his stuff from all of his in onboard the boats. In either situation, radar coverage for the CVSGs could be augmented or slated to outside systems such as Spacebased or USAF assets. E-2s would be used for sure but every with various patterns can be predictable. The threat nation would need to mass several weapons ate various launch points to converge on the CVSG but that is why there are normally 2-5 Aegis ships in the area. Add the fact that there would be other ships in the waters in other SAGs or operating on their own. These would also pose a threat to the launch platforms and their missiles.

As I mentioned above, if a carrier can be hit so that it cannot launch and recover aircraft, it has been neutralized as a strike force. It can still operate as a nerve center and focal point of intell. But as Popeye mentioned, this was done in RED STORM RISING. Also of note in that senario was the presence of only one Ticonderoga CG. Normally two can be found with US CVSGs. Add in the weapons found on the various Burke class DDGs and even the SM-1s of the Perry class FIGs and you have more SAMs for Air Defense. That frees up other assets such as USN/USMC strike aircraft from the boat and USAF assets to strike targets on the battlefield or behind it. I think the US Navy was extrememly foolish in retiring the F-14 which had speed, range and weapons. Sure the F-18E/F is cheaper to operate and has great new shinny bells and whistles but it is still lacking in range and the AIM-54 is the best Air to Air weapon to defend the CVSG. AIM120s and AIM7s are way too close for me if I was a CV Captain or CVSG Commander.

Hm for some reason it always comes down to sinking a USN carrier. That's of course the very top of naval warfare. Of course you can find a way to sink one, but unless you have a country that could amass the resources, it's somewhat moot discussing it.

Now some questions:
How blind are subs actually against a CVN? If they have sophisticated sonars couldn't they hear it from tens of miles away in good conditions? Of course that's not really much, maybe you need other assets for a first rough estimation. In the power projection role, a carrier has to come rather close to a shore anyway. Here would be a good place for SSKs to wait for them. Hunting a CVN down in the open sea is something completely different for a SSK.

The retirement of the Tomcats is more a problem in the short-medium term. With the APG-79 the Super-Hornets will get a better radar than the F-14s AWG-9 or APG-70, IMO. And the -120D will come really close to the Phoenix, I think.

I, too, think the retired Vikings are the greater problem.