Modern Carrier Battle Group..Strategies and Tactics

Originally Posted by SampanViking

For me the key point has to be the actual development of effective ASBM's. If they have been developed I think it changes the game completely.

The key strength of such a weapon would lie in its Kinetic Impact and as such I would not even bother putting on high explosives. It would eb far better to load multiple and varied Kinetic Kill weapons, some designed to penetrate an fragment at terminal velocity and others to Impact and Crush, destroying the actual frame of the ship. I would further emphasise the greater importance of imparting structual impact damage over that of blast and incendiary, I think 911 gave a very clear demonstration of this.

If one missile could break the structure then potentially it could sink the ship, no matter how big it is. Afterall; talk to the merchant marine, as during the Nineties, Bulk Carriers, bigger than Carriers were being lost at a surprising rate when Wave Impact damage broke the structure.

Really?? They have to penatrate the air defence shield first. Not an easy task. Bulk carriers and skyscrapers are not Aircraft Carriers.

I reiterate;

Sorry as I've previously posted in many a thread about sinking a CV(N) I've always stated that a conventional weapons would or could "mission kill
a CV but not sink it.

and;

In addition in May 2005 the USN set out to sink the ex-USS America CV-66 (Kitty Hawk class) with conventionl weapons in a "SINKEX" that was to test what combination of conventional weapons would sink an "Super Carrier".. After three weeks of on & off test the America was still afloat and was eventually sunk by EOD set explosives.

We in this forum have discussed this subject at nasuem. My fellow members you may continue to believe what you will on this subject. Those ^^ are my last words on this topic. Thank you.

Originally Posted by FriedRiceNSpice

It is most cost-effective to invest that into conventional submarine development. If China could produce more Yuans and design an indigenous weapon similiar to the Klub, then it'll have a credible deterrent against any surface group.

Another effective platforrm will be a future stealth strike aircraft capable of carrying the KD/KH series of anti-ship weapons.

conventional submarine don't have the speed to follow carrier groups, without compromising their position by using their diesel engines to acquire sufficient speed. Using battery powered can only last so long before surfacing for recharge. Another factor is the submarine is much smaller then nuclear submarine. Nuclear submarine is the best option so far.

Originally Posted by PrOeLiTeZ

conventional submarine don't have the speed to follow carrier groups, without compromising their position by using their diesel engines to acquire sufficient speed. Using battery powered can only last so long before surfacing for recharge. Another factor is the submarine is much smaller then nuclear submarine. Nuclear submarine is the best option so far.

Exactly, you need raw speed to catch and stay with a US CVBG; a diesel electric sub lacks that speed unless it got really lucky and just happened to be right in the path of a CVBG.

conventional submarine don't have the speed to follow carrier groups, without compromising their position by using their diesel engines to acquire sufficient speed. Using battery powered can only last so long before surfacing for recharge. Another factor is the submarine is much smaller then nuclear submarine. Nuclear submarine is the best option so far.

Exactly, you need raw speed to catch and stay with a US CVBG; a diesel electric sub lacks that speed unless it got really lucky and just happened to be right in the path of a CVBG.

Well, I doubt a nuclear submarine can keep up with a CVBG either. In both cases, you will deploy your submarines to pre-determined ambush locations and then strike in a coordinated saturation attack utilizing air, sea, and land assets. We are not really talking about going out and engaging carriers directly, but rather being able to succesfully conduct sea denial missions against the carriers. Being smaller, stealthier, but most important cheaper, you can disperse a larger number of diesels in the theatre prior to the arrival of the CVBGs. Ideally you would want your engines running for as short an amount of time as possible. Also, the diesels have a much better chance of getting away, and also with a lot more platforms losing a couple is not as big of a deal.

And a question to anyone who is knowledgeable on the subject- What kind of effect would a fuel-air explosive that managed to penetrate the deck of a carrier have? Would the extreme overpressure be enough to cause something like what happened to the USS Arizona?

Really?? They have to penatrate the air defence shield first. Not an easy task. Bulk carriers and skyscrapers are not Aircraft Carriers.

It gets difficult once there are a half dozen MIRVED projectiles coming at you at mach7+ speeds, along with the accompanying chaff and decoys.

Just dawned on me... you can also navalize DF-21... imagine DF-21 raining down from Yuans, Shangs, and future surface combatants!

Originally Posted by Pointblank

Exactly, you need raw speed to catch and stay with a US CVBG; a diesel electric sub lacks that speed unless it got really lucky and just happened to be right in the path of a CVBG.

All true and true. However, this does not mean the subs are not a threat, nor because of logic they should be discounted. There are quite a number of carriers, cruisers, and battleships that were torpedoed in the open ocean in WWII by slow small submarines.

Carrier Groups best defence against Submarine attack is speed, at 30+knots no sub (SSK or SSN) can keep pace, and when travelling at those speeds the subs sonar would be useless anyway. It would be Blind/deaf and would be making so much noise itself that it may as well be hosting a rock concert on deck! For a sub to attack it has to positioned ahead of the carrier group and practically motionless so as not to give away it's position then hope the CVSG doesn't change course. This is well understood by all sides, so a carrier's ASW assets (incl helos, frigates and SSNs) primarily sweep the sea ahead of the group and 'sanitize' the area. Saturation attacks by cruise missiles are the raison d' etre of the Aegis system assisted by the AEW Hawkeyes and outer ring CAP aircraft. No system is foolproof, but the carrier's defences are designed so that even the few missiles that leak through the CAP, Aegis, Pont defence missile systems, Phalanx guns and chaff launchers will have to be really lucky to even 'mission kill' a carrier. Popeye referred to the fires aboard the Forrestal and Enterprise, and these give the best indication of what would happen if any missiles leaked through. No sinking. Everyone has heard about how the RMS Titanic had sixteen watertight compartments, well a Nimitz has over a thousand! Missiles hit above the waterline so pose little threat to watertight integrity anyway. Remember HMS Sheffield in 82? Hit above the waterline, the warhead didn't go off but the engine started fires that destroyed the ship. She remained afloat though and only sank six days later in rough seas under tow to South Georgia. She was less than 5000 tons, and a Nimitz is 100000 tons. Factor in a well trained crew practiced in damage control and the worst effects of a missile strike can be contained.

As for targeting a carrier group for a missile strike in the first place, in just six hours a carrier can lose itself anywhere within 100,000 square miles of ocean...

Originally Posted by FriedRiceNSpice

However the big unknown here are submarine launched anti-ship missiles. The USN has no way of preventing such assets from getting within strike range, yet currently the number of capable platforms (Kilos, Yuans, and Shangs) just won't be able to deliver enough firepower to overcome the AEGIS defense system.
.

Contrary to popular perceptions, the USN has NO defence against some of the PLAN sub launched anti ship missiles. The U.S. Navy can't stop China's anti-ship missile -- and won't even start testing a defense until 2014, so the media reports .


http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...d=a5LkaU0wj714

http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/0...t-stop-ch.html

Now of course , I'm not sure if either of this journalist have ever served on a CVN , or let alone visited one, so some members here may beg to differ on their viewpoints (again) .

Carrier Groups best defence against Submarine attack is speed, at 30+knots no sub (SSK or SSN) can keep pace, and when travelling at those speeds the subs sonar would be useless anyway. It would be Blind/deaf and would be making so much noise itself that it may as well be hosting a rock concert on deck! For a sub to attack it has to positioned ahead of the carrier group and practically motionless so as not to give away it's position then hope the CVSG doesn't change course. This is well understood by all sides, so a carrier's ASW assets (incl helos, frigates and SSNs) primarily sweep the sea ahead of the group and 'sanitize' the area.

Exactly, therefore it is pointless to invest in expensive SSNs to engage carriers. But small, quiet diesels with engines off laying in ambush in littorial waters is going to be dififcult for ASW elements to detect. Also, remember that these submarines can strike from ranges of up to 300km with the current missiles on Chinese submarines. I adressed this already on a previous post. Furthermore, a sub-adapted DF-21 launching from Shangs/Yuans (if it is able to fit) as well as navalized DH-10s will have ranges of well over 1000km. How is any fleet going to sanatize everything within a 1000km radius, especially when a lot of that water is in enemy-controlled littorials?

No system is foolproof, but the carrier's defences are designed so that even the few missiles that leak through the CAP, Aegis, Pont defence missile systems, Phalanx guns and chaff launchers will have to be really lucky to even 'mission kill' a carrier.

Cruise missiles and conventional AShMs are one thing, mach7+ ballistic missiles are another. Essentially the defense systems will only have one shot at succesful intercpetion, and interception rate against a missile of that velocity will be under 90%. The Patriot reported only a 50% interception rate against Scuds, which have a terminal velocity of under mach4. With conventional missiles, the ones that get past the first layer of the defense can be engaged by the second layer. Even the Moskit, which only has a terminal velocity of mach2.5 only allows a fleet 8-12 seconds of reaction time. Finally, naval defenses are optimized for intercepting systems coming in on a horizontal axis, and the maximal altitudes of most SAMs are considerably less than their maximal range.

Everyone has heard about how the RMS Titanic had sixteen watertight compartments, well a Nimitz has over a thousand!

Titanic = unsinkable + pinacle of technology = sunk in under 2 hours by a medium sized iceberg.

Super Carrier = unsinkable + pinacle of technology = ???

As for targeting a carrier group for a missile strike in the first place, in just six hours a carrier can lose itself anywhere within 100,000 square miles of ocean...

True on the open waters, but within 2000-3000km of the Chinese coast:

Jianbing-5/YaoGan-1 and Jianbing-6/YaoGan-2 satellites and Beidou.

Hi,

I don't know if anyone had post this before. However I believe that there are many other way to make a carrier practically useless (might be temporary) than to actually sink it.

A carrier is huge and the way it was constructed, to sink it is effectively not achievable easily. However the main thing of a carrier is the ability for it to launch fighters and other aerial platforms. They are actually kind of like a floating and moving airbase.

However if we could scored hits on the runways on the carriers, damaged it enough to discourage taking off of aircrafts, we can actually made an aircraft carrier useless and forcing it back to base for repairs.

This would thus neutralise the carrier battlegroup... temporary.

I believe this is a more feasible tactics then to try and sink the carriers. That would be too ambitious to achieve... whats with current technology.

Anyway I am not an expert in naval warfare and might be blabbering too much.

Originally Posted by crobato

All true and true. However, this does not mean the subs are not a threat, nor because of logic they should be discounted. There are quite a number of carriers, cruisers, and battleships that were torpedoed in the open ocean in WWII by slow small submarines.

If you look at every case, you will find that there were a number of factors that contributed to the sinking, namely the sub just happened to stumble upon and be in a position to fire at such warships by chance.

If you look at every case, you will find that there were a number of factors that contributed to the sinking, namely the sub just happened to stumble upon and be in a position to fire at such warships by chance.

If you position those subs in areas you want to deny access to the carriers, then carriers won't be operating there. Regardless of whether or not the carriers are sunk, you have accomplished your mission. Even if those carriers are unscratched, they will be unable to get to the theatre and therefore totally useless.

Re subs not being able to keep up with a CBG, that's simply not true. SSNs can do over 30kts for sustained periods and this was proven by Soviet November class sub chasing USS Enterprise across the pacific in an infamous incident in 1968. The US did it to test the speed of the sub; they knew the sub was trailing them, so the Enterprise slowly increased speed to see if the sub could keep up. It did which amazed/concerned the USN as they hadn't expected it to!

(good account of the incident here http://books.google.com/books?id=KEe...sult#PPA141,M1)

Originally Posted by bd popeye

Really?? They have to penatrate the air defence shield first. Not an easy task. Bulk carriers and skyscrapers are not Aircraft Carriers.

I reiterate;



and;



We in this forum have discussed this subject at nasuem. My fellow members you may continue to believe what you will on this subject. Those ^^ are my last words on this topic. Thank you.

I do see the point you are making BD and accept that some of my looser language was a bit misleading (time presurre as always these days). If you are saying that to claim a single missile is likely to sink a Carrier is as wild as to claim that one one Aerial Bomb or Naval Artillery Shell could sink a Battleship, then I would agree. I aslo agree that shots and hits should not be confused any more today than were the Artillery Duels of the Dreadnaughts.

I would also clarify "sinking" (not that it should not somehow appear obvious to anybody involved in the event!). HMS Sheffield was "sunk" by a single AShM, but the actuall sinking happened several weeks after the missile strike. Further, even had the ship been salvaged and returned to port, it brings us to an area between Sinking and Mission Kill, that seems so far ignored in this thread; namely the area of being written off or otherwise damged beyond repair, namely when the cost of repair is so great and the time required so long, that it is simply cheaper to scrap the wreck and build a new one.

The real point I was making in my first post, is that I see the potential damage from Ballistically launched Kinetic Kill Vehicles as far more devastating than any that of any Cruise Missiles.

First point, is that to attack such major Capital Ships, the weapon designers can pretty much build weapons tailored to each specific ship.

Of such weapons the most dangerous I could envisage would be not so much a "Rod Of God" but a "Hammer of Thor". The idea of this weapon would not be on penetration, but to transmit impact shock directly to the structure of the ship, attacking not just the structural strength but the MATERIAL strength of the Steel itself. Such a weapon may not sink a Carrier but could reduce its structual and material strength to that of Jelly, making a long salvage journey home perilous and putting the vessel beyond the point of worthwhile repair.

Another weapon could mimick a more conventional high explosive weapon by having a pentration bar so shaped that a defined portion is liquified and fragemented as it penetrates each deck.

The third would be a Back Breaker and act like a Dum Dum Bullet, passing through the decks untill it hit the keel, where the degree of spread blows away a huge area of Bottom.

I can see no reason why weapon designers woudl not either/both equip the BM's with multiple and different systems or integrate different kill characteristics into single weapons.

I also hear what you say about the test sinking, but again a stripped hulk is not a perfect comparison against a fully equipped and complimented ship at combat readyness.

Ultimately the Super Carrier has now ruled the waves for nearly Seventy Years, which is far longer than the reign of the Dreadnaughts. It can hardly come as areal surprise if that reign is now being brought to an effective end.

Really my last, word..

Excellent post planeman and SampanViking! Excellent.

For those of you that are intrested we've had several threads on this subject. You will find some very similar post in all of them. By the same or similar cast of members.

Some of those threads from as far back as 2005 will show how many members have grown.

A navy one shot one kill

Is the Aircraft Carrier as a Capital Ship already obsolete?

http://www.sinodefenceforum.com/show...t=sink+carrier

http://www.sinodefenceforum.com/show...t=sink+carrier

USN fearful of PLAN subs