Modern Carrier Battle Group..Strategies and Tactics

Originally Posted by AssassinsMace

They were all under combat conditions. I never read about one that wasn't. One being the Sa'ar 5 where up until recently it was being played down as no significant damage when I just read an article somewhere that said four crew members were killed. So what else info do they hide?

Do you have a link to that article? I would be interested in reading it.

In addition, Sa'ar 5 incident is not a good example becuase it's systems, for all intents and purposes, were turned off.

There is no foolproof, total shield for protection. But clearly, given the proliferation to other navies (whose own experts are looking at the trade-offs and the effectiveness of the system) to this date, the AEGIS system has to be considered about the best available. Perfect? Nope, but any adversary is going to have to work very hard and be willing to commit and risk significant resource and assets to defeat it.

In the end, that's what it boils down to. How much does one side have to invest in a defensive system (and are they willing to make that investment), and then, how much does the other side have in terms of assets and technology to invest in overcoming those defenses, and are they willing to risk those assets in doing so.

For a major US task force, SAG, PHIBRON, or Carrier group protected by AEGIS the aircraft and or surface combatant investment is going to have to be very, very high, both during the engagement, and then thereafter (whether they are successful or not) when the inevitable retailiation comes (which will have to go through the same trade-off, risk, and investment calculations).

I'll look back at what I've been reading so I'll post when I find it.

In context of what was discussed, the Sa'ar 5 incident was under combat conditions so everyone should've been at their best.

Originally Posted by AssassinsMace

I'll look back at what I've been reading so I'll post when I find it.

In context of what was discussed, the Sa'ar 5 incident was under combat conditions so everyone should've been at their best.

But they were not. The USN is always in some sort of defensive posture..I can assure you. Even when in port. This has not always been so but it is now. It's called "Force Protection".

The layers of protection around a CVN within the CSG(Carrier Strike Group) are quite extensive. Aircraft , submarines ,USAF AWACS, USN AEW, Aegis system, GPS..The list goes on. No it would not be a simple task to sink a CVN. Not at all.

Witness this. From August 1965 until April 1975 USN CVs were active in wartime in the Gulf Of Tonkin. Why did not the North Vietnamese Air Force or any of their Navy patrol boats launch an attack against the USN CVAs which were reeking seveere damage on N. Vietnam? Anyone care to answer that?

Well this has been discussed before. And like I've noted before... an obsolete Seersucker got past a triad of US sensors without being detected to hit Kuwait City during the height of the invasion of the 2nd Iraq War. That was over open water. If sensors can't even see it, then one can't even attempt to knock it down.

And right after the Sa'ar 5 incident, it was immediately said that it was a Chinese AShM. If they knew the enemy had it in their possession, shouldn't they have been alert in the first place? So either Western militaries aren't absolutely 100% professional under combat conditions all the time as stated or there are technological holes that can be exploited that aren't advertised.

Originally Posted by AssassinsMace

Well this has been discussed before. And like I've noted before... an obsolete Seersucker got past a triad of US sensors without being detected to hit Kuwait City during the height of the invasion of the 2nd Iraq War. That was over open water. If sensors can't even see it, then one can't even attempt to knock it down.

And right after the Sa'ar 5 incident, it was immediately said that it was a Chinese AShM. If they knew the enemy had it in their possession, shouldn't they have been alert in the first place? So either Western militaries aren't absolutely 100% professional under combat conditions all the time as stated or there are technological holes that can be exploited that aren't advertised.

You are correct. This has been discussed previously.

Your assesment, if directed at the USN, is absoultly incorrect. Did you ,AssassinsMace, ever serve a single day with the US Navy?

USN ships ..particulary Aegis equipped ones, maintain a war fighting posture at all times. This I can attest to. How other "western nations" conduct themselves in combat has very little to do with how the US would react in combat.

If you feel that the USN systems are not manned at 100% professionalism why didn't the Iraqis attack the US Fleet during either Gulf War? Why did not the Lybians launch a counter strike at the US Navy when attacked by the US in April 1986?

Those systems used in the first Gulf War are no longer in use. I'm not sure if the Aegis system was in use to protect Kuwait City. Like I stated. The present day USN Force protection posture is much diffrent.

You did not answer this question.

From August 1965 until April 1975 USN CVs were active in wartime in the Gulf Of Tonkin. Why did not the North Vietnamese Air Force or any of their Navy patrol boats launch an attack against the USN CVAs which were reeking seveere damage on N. Vietnam? Anyone care to answer that?

You don't have to. Honestly, I would be very intrested in your answer. Thank you.

Like I said before, I'm no expert. But you don't need to be an expert to know that a Seersucker got past AWACS, Patriot, and Aegis sensors without being seen. A Seersucker hit Kuwait City with no warning or alarms sounding. Not on paper or an exercise but under combat conditions. The argument was this doesn't happen yet it did. Somewhere along the line something failed whether it was human or technological. And back then they said nothing can get past that kind of technology too. Oh yeah I've heard the excuses but they sound more like denial. I especially like the one I heard that the Iraqis rolled up a launcher across the Iraqi/Kuwait border snuck past US forces into Kuwait rolling a missile all the way up to the capital without being noticed once during the height of the invasion and launching it there to which is why it wasn't detected. That was probably a failure in the human part. You can't have it both ways. It's either human or technological and it was under combat conditions which counters the argument made.

You really want to bring Vietnam into this? Maybe they didn't attack because they believed it would be futile. But then what was the result of the Vietnam War with all that might. On paper that wasn't suppose to happen either. A lot of stuff on paper doesn't turn out the way it's suppose to. Recent history included.

Thank you for your response.

The name of this thread is why I asked about Vietnam & Lybia.

Originally Posted by AssassinsMace

Like I said before, I'm no expert. But you don't need to be an expert to know that a Seersucker got past AWACS, Patriot, and Aegis sensors without being seen. A Seersucker hit Kuwait City with no warning or alarms sounding. Not on paper or an exercise but under combat conditions. The argument was this doesn't happen yet it did. Somewhere along the line something failed whether it was human or technological. And back then they said nothing can get past that kind of technology too. Oh yeah I've heard the excuses but they sound more like denial. I especially like the one I heard that the Iraqis rolled up a launcher across the Iraqi/Kuwait border snuck past US forces into Kuwait rolling a missile all the way up to the capital without being noticed once during the height of the invasion and launching it there to which is why it wasn't detected. That was probably a failure in the human part. You can't have it both ways. It's either human or technological and it was under combat conditions which counters the argument made.

You really want to bring Vietnam into this? Maybe they didn't attack because they believed it would be futile. But then what was the result of the Vietnam War with all that might. On paper that wasn't suppose to happen either. A lot of stuff on paper doesn't turn out the way it's suppose to. Recent history included.

You have, IMHO, a somewhat scewed sense of history. The US abjectly defeated the VC and then fought and bombed the North Vietnamese to the negotiating table and they negotiated very favorable terms for the US and the South Vietnamese in 1972 ands 1973. In essece, the military conflict at that time was over and the US had won a substantial and very lopsided victory...despite all the efforts by people within the United States to undercut it.

Then, two years later, when the North violated that treaty, the US which was standing down, continued to do so. In essence, the US chose not to engage or fight and continue the war.

The victory for the North was not over US military or technology, it was over US politics. It was a lesson that took a long, long time for the US to grow out of...and events of today may suggest that we have again forgotten the lesson. It sent a terrible message to our allies and to our enemies.

Anyhow, just so the record can be straight, there was no military defeat of the US in that war and the historical record bears it out. Even the generals of the North admit it in their own memoirs.

It was certainly a political victory over an intentionally split public...and it certainly was compelling and resulted in the US not continuing a fight that the enemy whom we had fought and bombed into submission, and who had signed a peace treaty to that effect, violated. We just did not engage anymore.

It was a very shameful time fo the US.

But I drift far off topic.

In that war, there were in fact several sorties by N Vietnamese aircraft against the US carriers operating of their coasts. none of them succeeded in getting very close.

As I said above. The AEGIS system is not perfect, but it is arguably the best there is and any opposing force will have to make a very signifcant cost benefit analysis before attacking into the teeth of it, both in terms of the initial attack, and its aftermath.

North Vietnam and Libya had backwards, obsolete underdeveloped militaries, they didn't even have weapons systems that could reach the US fleet. Using them as examples of a saturated attack with modern weapons is a joke. The PLAN might not have any weapons systems that could strike at a carrier, but single CSG is not going to be safe and sound sailing right up next to the Chinese coast, where the PLA has the leisure of lobbing hundreds of missiles and sending hundreds of aircraft at it.

Originally Posted by FriedRiceNSpice

North Vietnam and Libya had backwards, obsolete underdeveloped militaries, they didn't even have weapons systems that could reach the US fleet. Using them as examples of a saturated attack with modern weapons is a joke. The PLAN might not have any weapons systems that could strike at a carrier, but single CSG is not going to be safe and sound sailing right up next to the Chinese coast, where the PLA has the leisure of lobbing hundreds of missiles and sending hundreds of aircraft at it.

Back in the late 60's and early 70's the technolgy difference was less pronounced than it is today in terms of the aircraft the North Vietnamese had to attack with and particularly the defenses the US had. There was no AEGIS back then and the AAW missiles were much less capable.

But I tend to agree that such a comparison is not a good one. The US still had a mariked advantage.

I agree that it would be foolhardy for the US to try and park a carrier group right next to the Chinese coast. That would not happen in any case.

What would happen is that US submarines would attempt to sanitize the straits to disrupt any invasion, and the US carriers (probably at least two) would lay well off to the east of Taiwan and use their AEW aircraft and fighter aircraft to protect themselves and to cause significant attrition against any PLAAF aircraft that were engaging the ROCAF or trying to get through to the US carriers.

It is in that environemnt that the PLAAF would have to try and mount a saturation attack against the US carriers, and it would be a very, very difficult nut to crack.

Ever hear that war is politics with guns and politics is war without guns?

It doesn't matter whose toys were broken more, the North Vietnamese took over South Vietnam. Was it unfair for the VC to break a treaty? The same can be said of the US technological advantage. It's not like all this happened with a year. The beginning years of the Vietnam War pretty much went unquestioned?

The samething can be said of Iraq but are those for the war willing to declare victory and pull out? War is a lot more than comparing how many things are broken on each side. Even with the outright military victory in Iraq, the hawks don't want to pull out because as they say, that would be giving victory to the terrorists. More contradictions.

Originally Posted by AssassinsMace

Like I said before, I'm no expert. But you don't need to be an expert to know that a Seersucker got past AWACS, Patriot, and Aegis sensors without being seen. A Seersucker hit Kuwait City with no warning or alarms sounding. Not on paper or an exercise but under combat conditions. The argument was this doesn't happen yet it did. Somewhere along the line something failed whether it was human or technological. And back then they said nothing can get past that kind of technology too. Oh yeah I've heard the excuses but they sound more like denial. I especially like the one I heard that the Iraqis rolled up a launcher across the Iraqi/Kuwait border snuck past US forces into Kuwait rolling a missile all the way up to the capital without being noticed once during the height of the invasion and launching it there to which is why it wasn't detected. That was probably a failure in the human part. You can't have it both ways. It's either human or technological and it was under combat conditions which counters the argument made.

That missle landed right on the waterfront. Right next to the ocean. What I believe happened is that the US Air Defence system picked up the missle and believed that it would land in the ocean so chose not to engage it, to save a costly Patriot missle. IIRC they made the same decision about several other BMs that were fired and landed in the ocean. That time however they were slightly off, and the Seersucker just barely hit the land.

So, if that is true, which circumstantial evidence indicates it was, then the incident might reflect on the ability of the sensors to predict the landing point of a missle, or the judgement of the commander, but not the reliability of the sensors to detect the missle or the Patriot to intercept.

I saw the pictures of the impact when it happened. It was on the waterfront but it did not hit the water. It hit a large structure along the waterfront that they said the Seersucker interpreted to be a ship since it was an AShM. I don't buy that they guessed it would miss. The missile was launched in a blind shot ~50 miles away and it landed in Kuwait City. They're not going to say "don't bother" in a city filled with US personel when back then it was believed Saddam had WMDs unless they knew he had no WMDs .

If they knew it was coming but didn't want to bother, wouldn't they have sounded the alarms anyways?

What would happen is that US submarines would attempt to sanitize the straits to disrupt any invasion, and the US carriers (probably at least two) would lay well off to the east of Taiwan and use their AEW aircraft and fighter aircraft to protect themselves and to cause significant attrition against any PLAAF aircraft that were engaging the ROCAF or trying to get through to the US carriers.

It is in that environemnt that the PLAAF would have to try and mount a saturation attack against the US carriers, and it would be a very, very difficult nut to crack.

In that case then it would be foolhardy for the PLA to try to attack the carriers. The majority of its inventory, such as most of the PLAAF, won't even be able to reach the carriers. What weapons platforms it has that can reach will have to fly over the entire island of Taiwan and deal with Taiwanese surface to air defenses. Also, it wouldn't be cost-effective since even if an attack could succeed, far more Chinese aircraft would be lost in the attack on the carriers than would be lost to attrition to US aircraft otherwise.