Modern Carrier Battle Group..Strategies and Tactics

Originally Posted by BLUEJACKET

If nukes are used against tactical targets-i.e. ships, bases, troop concentrations and not against continental USA there is no risk of starting nuclear war. Besides, EMP bomb doesn't have to be nuclear, and their own forces can be kept at a safe distance before other conventional attacks are launched.

I must disagree. The use of nuclear weapons to destroy a US carrier would result in American forces retaliating with more use of tactical nuclear weapons against other targets. Considering that the US has a massive advantage over most other countries in this sort of a limited nuclear exchange, the use of a nuke against a US carrier is not reccomended.

Question: What would happen if the nuclear reactor on a Nimitz was damaged or ruptured in an attack. This could be accomplished by a single SSM (I think )

Originally Posted by Finn McCool

I must disagree. The use of nuclear weapons to destroy a US carrier would result in American forces retaliating with more use of tactical nuclear weapons against other targets. Considering that the US has a massive advantage over most other countries in this sort of a limited nuclear exchange, the use of a nuke against a US carrier is not reccomended.

Question: What would happen if the nuclear reactor on a Nimitz was damaged or ruptured in an attack. This could be accomplished by a single SSM (I think )

imo, if a nuclear weapon is used and destroys a US carrier, you can definitely expect nukes against the guilty party's homeland. I suppose the radiation effect from nuclear reactor is dangerous, but it's not going to be something like chernobyl.

Originally Posted by IDonT

Where would the attackers get their information from? An AWACS? ...
You can argue escorting it, but by then you have dispersed your attack forces.

Secondly, the SAM trap is meant to destroy and/or absorbed an anti-ship attack while keeping the carrier safe. Using your anti-ship ordinance and military assets on an Aegis Equipped warship is a waste of money and munitions. A battle group commander would gladly trade a destroy for a carrier.

Well, in my previous posts i have already stated that one'd have to use vastly bigger forces to defeat a carrier that what carrier has. A single awacs and 60 combat planes just won't cut it. One'd have to use forces that perhaps just a few countries in the world have today, and even then it'd be like using almost all of them. So realistically, yeah, it'd probably not be worth it, but we're talking about how does one sink a carrier, not how does one win the war. So, still providing carrier is somehat close to shore (as when its out in the ocean it's a game stopper ) one would need multiple surveillance platforms for larger search footprint AND perhaps even rotation and replacements. One would need strong enough fighter cover deployed at any time, which again, is a huge force. and on top of that one'd need decently sized attack force. Yes, i am aware i'm talking about 100-400 planes, depending on their efficiency against USN fighters. No sane person would trade 400 of its fighters for 40 of enemy's planes. (lets say 8 are rearming/refuelling/whatnot on the carrier deck)

The further the carrier is, the harder it is for attacker - having to use more planes to keep the rotations going, perhaps even add in flight refuelling, etc. 1000 km out in the sea it'd be a monumental logistical undertaking.

In such light, destroying the forward burke might not be a waste for the attacker. Sure without awacs it'd be more or less blind for low flying threats but attackers would still not be able to go high up, being threatened by sm-2. Flying low all the time might not give them enough range to strike the carrier itself. Going around the forward burke at high altitude also means shaving at least 200 km off range. Hence, there very well might be a situation where it's just necesarry to 'waste' 50 missiles to get the burke first, clear way for planes to go straight for the main target.

Alternatively, one could also design, produce then use VAST numbers of uavs
all interconnected during flight, exchanging info, spread out first to find the carrier, then sending data to rest of the swarm to attack. Here we're probably talking numbers well over a thousand. Again, not practical, in the bigger scheme of things not worth it, but when talking bout a hypothetical scenario - doable.

OK folks, here is another argument: unless a carrier is stealth or a submarine it's a BIG target that can be spotted by long range AWACS flying over 3rd countries, from space, by AGI and /or civilian ships, etc. And in the past, countries have been known to share intel.- so if a given nation lacks its own assets, it still has allies. "Don't have just $100, have 100 friends!"
Subs with ot without AIP can be positioned along the probable routes of CBG and sooner or later they'll score. Again, disabling it will be easier than sending it to the bottom; taking a lot of prisoners & ships as war booty is better than wasting ammo on tons of steel.
Another method is to detonate some low-yeld nukes underwater- the shock wave will disable if not SSN escorts, than their sensors at least- along with ASW ones on surface ships in a CBG, besides the radiation effect on crews/ electronics. Then the attackers could move their own subs for a kill.

Originally Posted by BLUEJACKET

OK folks, here is another argument: unless a carrier is stealth or a submarine it's a BIG target that can be spotted by long range AWACS flying over 3rd countries, from space, by AGI and /or civilian ships, etc. And in the past, countries have been known to share intel.- so if a given nation lacks its own assets, it still has allies. "Don't have just $100, have 100 friends!"
Subs with ot without AIP can be positioned along the probable routes of CBG and sooner or later they'll score. Again, disabling it will be easier than sending it to the bottom; taking a lot of prisoners & ships as war booty is better than wasting ammo on tons of steel.
Another method is to detonate some low-yeld nukes underwater- the shock wave will disable if not SSN escorts, than their sensors at least- along with ASW ones on surface ships in a CBG, besides the radiation effect on crews/ electronics. Then the attackers could move their own subs for a kill.

I would like to point out a low yield nuke underwater would probably kill friendly submarines too. Not only would the the shock wave/overpressure probably compromise the hull of a sub, we must not forget that sound waves are much more profound underwater. And I am pretty sure a nuclear blast, no matter how weak, is pretty loud. The waves, if not killing the occupants, will either render them with bleeding ears, bleeding eyes, or in the most likely scenario, both.

Originally Posted by tphuang

imo, if a nuclear weapon is used and destroys a US carrier, you can definitely expect nukes against the guilty party's homeland. I suppose the radiation effect from nuclear reactor is dangerous, but it's not going to be something like chernobyl.

When a nuclear reactor is leaking, most likely the entire carrier will have to be evacuated. The carrier would be crippled. However, if a nation is really crafty, they would send the carrier careening towards the hostile nation and let them deal with it.

Originally Posted by BLUEJACKET

OK folks, here is another argument: unless a carrier is stealth or a submarine it's a BIG target that can be spotted by long range AWACS flying over 3rd countries, from space, by AGI and /or civilian ships, etc. And in the past, countries have been known to share intel.- so if a given nation lacks its own assets, it still has allies. "Don't have just $100, have 100 friends!"
Subs with ot without AIP can be positioned along the probable routes of CBG and sooner or later they'll score. Again, disabling it will be easier than sending it to the bottom; taking a lot of prisoners & ships as war booty is better than wasting ammo on tons of steel.
Another method is to detonate some low-yeld nukes underwater- the shock wave will disable if not SSN escorts, than their sensors at least- along with ASW ones on surface ships in a CBG, besides the radiation effect on crews/ electronics. Then the attackers could move their own subs for a kill.

Yes a carrier is big, but the ocean is many times bigger. You make it sound so easy. Why not just send AWACS to find it?

1.) Do you ever consider that the AWACS might get shot down before the carrier is even in its range?

2.) Do you even consider how an EA-18G Growler will wreck havoc on your radar and communication picture.

3.) Sharing intel makes sense, but by the time you receive intel, it would have been "overtaken by events."

Here is Russia's AWACS, and some respects China's AWACS
http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/a50/

The radar and guidance systems have the capacity to track 50 to 60 targets simultaneously and to guide 10 to 12 fighter aircraft simultaneously



Here is the E-2C hawkeye with only 4 operators
http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/hawkeye/

The Lockheed Martin AN/APS-145 radar is capable of tracking more than 2,000 targets and controlling the interception of 40 hostile targets. One radar sweep covers 6 million cubic miles. The radar's total radiation aperture control antenna reduces sidelobes and is robust against electronic countermeasures. It is capable of detecting aircraft at ranges greater than 550km.

See how huge the electronic gap between the US and other countries. That is comparing a full fledge AWACS with more than a dozen operators vs a small carrier base AWACS. Imagine what the E-3 capability is. Good luck finding a carrier in a hostile EM environment.

4.)Your prepositioned subs, still need to move to get into firing position.

5.) Using Nukes, on any form, is still escalation. Be very sure you are prepared for the US response.

Originally Posted by IDonT

Yes a carrier is big, but the ocean is many times bigger. You make it sound so easy. Why not just send AWACS to find it?

1.) Do you ever consider that the AWACS might get shot down before the carrier is even in its range?

2.) Do you even consider how an EA-18G Growler will wreck havoc on your radar and communication picture.

3.) Sharing intel makes sense, but by the time you receive intel, it would have been "overtaken by events."

Here is Russia's AWACS, and some respects China's AWACS
http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/a50/

The radar and guidance systems have the capacity to track 50 to 60 targets simultaneously and to guide 10 to 12 fighter aircraft simultaneously



Here is the E-2C hawkeye with only 4 operators
http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/hawkeye/

The Lockheed Martin AN/APS-145 radar is capable of tracking more than 2,000 targets and controlling the interception of 40 hostile targets. One radar sweep covers 6 million cubic miles. The radar's total radiation aperture control antenna reduces sidelobes and is robust against electronic countermeasures. It is capable of detecting aircraft at ranges greater than 550km.

See how huge the electronic gap between the US and other countries. That is comparing a full fledge AWACS with more than a dozen operators vs a small carrier base AWACS. Imagine what the E-3 capability is. Good luck finding a carrier in a hostile EM environment.

4.)Your prepositioned subs, still need to move to get into firing position.

5.) Using Nukes, on any form, is still escalation. Be very sure you are prepared for the US response.

All good points, but what if:
1. an enemy uses many AWACS with fighter escorts in its own or in other friendly airspace to even the odds. They could be based in Iran, Pakistan, Malaysia, Bangladesh & Burma and also fly over Nepal and/orTibet.

"Radar "Vega-M" designed by MNIIP, Moscow, produced by NPO Vega-M. "Vega-M" is capable to track up to 50 targets simultaneously within 230 km range. Large targets (ships) are tracked within 400 km range."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beriev_A-50
2. E-2s are shot down by long range missiles- http://www.ainonline.com/Publication...improved10.htm
http://www.vectorsite.net/twbomb8.ht...org.nz/ras.htm
3. instead of targeting a carrier, land-based tankers (they aren't stealthy either) & their bases are attacked- without tanker support, airwings are limited to CAP around CBG, as it has to stay further away from shore based missiles. If it comes closer to coast, its volnurability will increase. See my post on another tread-
http://www.sinodefenceforum.com/show...ed=1#post45991
Their own subs may wait well outside the nuked area and then arrive on station- it may take them a week but the CBG will still be in bad shape.
Using nukes may lead to escalated responce, but will the US sacrifice Anchorage, Honolulu (& Pearl Harbor with it), Seattle, and/or L.A. for a carrier with a few thousand sailors? I don't think so! A country like China can lose a few large cities along with a few hundred million of its citizens easier than the USA.

The Moskit missile seems very useful in sinking a carrier, especially it's supersonic speed.

Originally Posted by BLUEJACKET

Using nukes may lead to escalated responce, but will the US sacrifice Anchorage, Honolulu (& Pearl Harbor with it), Seattle, and/or L.A. for a carrier with a few thousand sailors? I don't think so! A country like China can lose a few large cities along with a few hundred million of its citizens easier than the USA.

Sorry, Bluejacket, but IMHO this is an insane comment. Nuking a US carrier will evoke an American nuclear response targeting most to the aggressor nation's military capabilities, particularly their nuclear capabilities. If that agressor responded by nuking one or more US cities (which would have to get through the ever developing American BMD), the aggressor would not just lose a few cities, they would probably lose all cities of any appreciable size and capable of adding to the war effort in any way.

No sane person wants to go there or would ever attempt to do so. If they were insane, then the US would undoubtedly be hurt, but not fatally by any measure. However, that agressor would cease to exist.

Originally Posted by BLUEJACKET

All good points, but what if:
1. an enemy uses many AWACS with fighter escorts in its own or in other friendly airspace to even the odds. They could be based in Iran, Pakistan, Malaysia, Bangladesh & Burma and also fly over Nepal and/orTibet.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beriev_A-50
2. E-2s are shot down by long range missiles- http://www.ainonline.com/Publication...improved10.htm
http://www.vectorsite.net/twbomb8.ht...org.nz/ras.htm
3. instead of targeting a carrier, land-based tankers (they aren't stealthy either) & their bases are attacked- without tanker support, airwings are limited to CAP around CBG, as it has to stay further away from shore based missiles. If it comes closer to coast, its volnurability will increase. See my post on another tread-
http://www.sinodefenceforum.com/show...ed=1#post45991
Their own subs may wait well outside the nuked area and then arrive on station- it may take them a week but the CBG will still be in bad shape.
Using nukes may lead to escalated responce, but will the US sacrifice Anchorage, Honolulu (& Pearl Harbor with it), Seattle, and/or L.A. for a carrier with a few thousand sailors? I don't think so! A country like China can lose a few large cities along with a few hundred million of its citizens easier than the USA.

1.) That's possible, but then that nation's neutrality will be compromised. Do you really think the US will not cross that nation's border's to attack the said aircraft.

2.) The E-2C has a detection range of about 540 miles. Is there an Air to air missile with that range? I don't think so. Besides, hostile aircraft getting into lauching points will be intercepted by F-18s.

3.) F/A-18 has the capability to become tankers for other aircraft on the carrier airwing.

4.) As for your nuke comment, see Jeff's post. Please lets not get into that. The mods hate that kind of post and I really don't want this thread to be closed.

5.) Moskit is a very good missile. But at a max range of about 60-100 miles, the lauching platform won't survive long enough to lauch it. That is assuming that it can find where the carrier is.

IDonT sez;

4.) As for your nuke comment, see Jeff's post. Please lets not get into that. The mods hate that kind of post and I really don't want this thread to be closed

He is 100% correct. Knock off the nuclear war chat or That is exactly what I did not want to happen in this thread.

bd popeye moderator

How about sinking a non US carrier.

1.) The French Carrier Battlegroup (Centered around the Charles De Gaulle)
2.) Russian Carrier Battlegroup (Kuznetsov)
3.) The Royal Navy Battlegroup (Invincible Class)
4.) The Indian Navy Battlegroup (Viraat)

Sorry to be off topic, but just a little thing to note. Link to russian awacs on aviation technology site cites data which has been around since a-50's start. Since then russians have moved (as much as funding allowed them) to a-50u, yet the said website doesn't reflect any changes. Furthermore, after phalcon awacs was cancelled for china, russia offered china a new variant of a-50, which beriev is now pushing around as a-50e. It is interesting to note that china's kj-2000 has same radar in principle, 3 sided phased array, also on il-76 platform. Here is link to beriev's own website. http://www.beriev.com/eng/A-50E_e/A-50E_e.html

Sure, it still doesn't equal a modern e3 but we are in year 2006, it is absolutely expected that modern electronics can offer such capabilities.

Originally Posted by IDonT

How about sinking a non US carrier.

1.) The French Carrier Battlegroup (Centered around the Charles De Gaulle)
2.) Russian Carrier Battlegroup (Kuznetsov)
3.) The Royal Navy Battlegroup (Invincible Class)
4.) The Indian Navy Battlegroup (Viraat)

The Royal Navy's carrier groups defences have been severely weakened recently by the withdrawal of the Sea Harrier F/A 2, as this aircraft had BVR missile capability (Blue Vixen Radar, used as the basis for the Typhoon's radar, and AIM 120 AMRAAMs and AIM 9 Sidewinders). The Harrier GR7 and GR9 have no radar and only sidewinders for AAW so would have to rely on the Sea King ASAC7 or ship radar for interception of enemy aircraft before they reach missile range. Whoever thought this was a good move should have been tried for treason.

As to ship based defences, a typical RN CSG would have at least two type 42 DDGs with Sea Dart SAMs for area defence (Sea Dart still has a fearsome reputation and has been progressively updated over the years, currently on mod 3 standard, and also proved it's anti missile capacity in combat when HMS Gloucester shot down an Iraqi Anti ship missile that had been fired at a USN Battleship in 1991) out to ranges beyond 40 miles. Also with the CSG will be around four Type 23 frigates and possibly a type 22 for ASW Defence using towed array sonars, Lynx HAS 8s and Merlin HMA 1s. The frigates are also armed with Sea Wolf point defence SAMs, engeging any targets that have penetrated the outer defence screens to a range of 10 miles. Sea Wolf was able to shoot down artillery shells when first introduced back in 1979 and is much more accurate now! It has, like Sea Dart, been progressively upgraded including an electro-optical guidance system in addition to the I & K band radars and was designed to cope with saturation attacks, trading long range for rapid fire and high levels of accuracy.
As a last ditch effort, the Type 42s and the Carriers have CIWS ( 2x Phalanx 20mm guns on the type 42s, three Pahalanx guns on Ark Royal and Ocean, two Goalkeeper 30mm on the LPDs Albion and Bulwark and three Goalkeepers on Illustrious and Invincible) to 'mop up' any missiles or aircraft that have survived the other systems (probably very few). As for the sub threat, the RNs reputation in ASW is second to none, the Merlin and Lynx helos are amongst the most advanced sub hunters in the world, and like US CSGs there will most likely be a couple of SSNs attached to the group to provide distant cover.