Modern Carrier Battle Group..Strategies and Tactics

Originally Posted by Ambivalent

Careful, asymmetric warfare implies the enemy has a glaring weakness that can be exploited. Maybe one can use this against smaller navies who cannot afford the full spectrum of weapons and sensors, but against the USN there is close to nothing they are not good at already. A fight involving the USN would look like Desert Storm at sea with them setting a very high operational tempo, using speed to control the battle space completely. Any enemy would have to defeat the carrier's air wing, no mean task, to get in close enough to attack the ships. Those carriers aren't going to go close inshore to fight, they will make an enemy come out into deep water away from shore based air protection and fight on their terms, against that air wing. Good luck. Without equal carriers such a navy is doomed to defeat. In my opinion, the ship with the most chance of doing damage against a carrier strike group is a modern nuclear attack sub like an Akula. It will have to be very very quiet and deep diving to evade the CSG's ASW sensors, and even then it will be a difficult tactical problem. The CSG brings along a couple of their own high quality subs.
To strangle the USN's logistics would require sweeping their combat ships from the seas first. Have fun trying. The logistics functions will be well out of the way of the fight. The USN has a lot of experience resupplying combat forces during combat. They invented it remember. It was one of the well kept secrets of WWII. Credit then Lt. Nimits immediately after WWI for pioneering the techniques used today.

Yes, I was sort of speaking in theoretical terms, I didn't hit anything concrete because I couldn't really think of anyways around the USNs full-spectrum dominance. Suffice to say that there is no good solution to the problem of a CSG. I suppose what I was trying to say is that you shouldn't even play the USN's game. Don't fight them. Achieve your objectives other ways. For example, rather than fighting the USN in the waters around the Gulf to stop the flow of the oil supply, blow up Ras Tanura Oil Terminal in a terrorist-style attack.

Basically the point I'm trying to make is that getting around the USNs sheer dominance at sea requires some very out of the box and not necessarily naval thinking, which is not really very pertinent to this thread, it is after all about sinking a carrier.

Originally Posted by Kampfwagen

Hey there guys. I realize this is an extremely strange question, but hopefuly it will generate some discussion. Also, it helps, because I am a complete and utter n00b when it comes to the navies of the world.

Anyway...On to the question: How does one sink a modern Nuclear-Powered carrier, like The Enterprise or H.M.S Invincible get sunk by conventional means? An Aircraft sortie seems quite risky, if not impossible. Are there any unconventional means of going about it? I apologize if this seems vague, but the basic question is in the topic.

Oh, and one final word. PLAY NICE KIDS!

well, if it is to sink a USN carrier, its virtually impossible, due to the long range of surveillance and fighter escort and difficulty of detecting an carrier, and even to the durability of the carrier. And even if it was sunk, there would be regime changing in the attacking nation.

Well, if I intend to blow up a carrier than we already are in a situation were the US tries to Regime change me.

I have come to the belief that blowing up its bombers outside of the carriers assistance range is propably more cost effective for nearly any potential enemy.
IIRC there have been successfull terrorist/Sabotage (actually, a carrier is a purely military target, so terrorist is wrong here) like attacks against US navy Vessels in the past, and a sabotgae attempted by a major power will be MUCH more nasty than what some islamic dudes operating out of caves could do.

Apart from that, the US is, because its a relative free and heterogenous society, relativly easy to infiltrate (same applies to most European countries apart from Russia which is not as easy to get into). US strategists now of this weakness and try to amend it, but it still stays one.

Secondly, the more complex a system becomes, the easier sabotage gets.
It doesnt get much more complicated than a carrier.

Third: "Winning" a war against the US (actually, since invading the USA is out of the question, the goal would be to make the US believe that it is loosing, worked fine in Vietnam)would require attrititing their troops. Starting a large scale conventional anti Carrier wave would mean to fight on the opponents terms, which does not seem to be very smart.
Given the relative industrial outputs, even a China/Russia/EU (assuming nobody goes nuclear) alliance may run out of conventional waves before all carriers are downed .


Lets do something different:
What about a fictional little briefing?

Watch out, bunch of clichees detected ahead:

Situation:

Following several diplomatic incidents (after terrorist attacks in Moskva and Khabarovsk )between a resurgent Russia and China, a limited war broke out between the 2 nations.
Russian troops in the far east seized the initiave, obliberated the Chinese border guards in Manchuria and has an armoured spear head advancing down the manchurian coast.
The Varyag is supporting this corps and fundamental to the current Russian aerial superiority.

A holding action is fought to delay the Russian advance until sufficient reserves have been mobilized.
For this to succeed, the Varyag has to sink.

assume the Chinese state to be fully operational, but nukes are not a possibility.

Originally Posted by Ambivalent

Careful, asymmetric warfare implies the enemy has a glaring weakness that can be exploited. Maybe one can use this against smaller navies who cannot afford the full spectrum of weapons and sensors, but against the USN there is close to nothing they are not good at already.

Yes, thanks for reminding us how "unsinkable" the US Carriers are . Let those who dare challenge the Almighty USN beware.

It would be interesting to see how the USN would fare against the Iranian navy since the probability of conflict is the highest given the current tension; the Iranian Navy are reportedly armed with the Sunburn and Klub.

http://www.combatreform2.com/ussrona...iranianUAV.jpg

Originally Posted by marclees

It would be interesting to see how the USN would fare against the Iranian navy since the probability of conflict is the highest given the current tension; the Iranian Navy are reportedly armed with the Sunburn and Klub.

The USN would wipe the floor with the Iranian Navy. No carriers would even enter the Gulf. They would stand off, out in the deep water in the Arabian Sea. Iran's Kilos would most likely try to go out and engage them but if they did the Straits of Hormuz would end up playing the reverse role and being a bottleneck for the Iranians; the USN would have it covered with SSNs. The rest of Iran's navy would be picked apart by the carriers airwings and TLACM strikes from the battlegroups etc.

If Iran's Kilos laid low waited for the majority of the USNs assets to enter the Gulf (a better strategy), they would still be in trouble because the USN would not do so until the Iranian Navy's surface assets had been entirely destroyed, and most of their air force and missle assets, because to do otherwise would be far too risky. Thus the USN would be able to hunt them freely without any pressure from Iran's other assets. Furthermore they might have to wait for quite a while, which would test their endurance.

I'm not saying the USN wouldn't suffer casualties. It's quite possible that surface combatants in the Gulf could be lost. Aircraft certainly would be downed. But if you think that Iran's navy is getting anywhere near the carriers or majorly slowing down the US's operational timetable, you are sadly mistaken.

marclees posted;

It would be interesting to see how the USN would fare against the Iranian navy since the probability of conflict is the highest given the current tension; the Iranian Navy are reportedly armed with the Sunburn and Klub.

I agree with Finn's assessment. I think the greatest threat to the USN from Iran would be her subs..And of course if a conflict did arise expect the USN CVNs to exit the gulf and operate in the Indian Ocean as Finn has pointed out. If such a scenario did occur the USAF would provide AWACS and Tankers.

marclees, How do you think a USN Vs Iranian Navy would play out given todays situations? thanks!

Originally Posted by bd popeye

I agree with Finn's assessment. I think the greatest threat to the USN from Iran would be her subs..And of course if a conflict did arise expect the USN CVNs to exit the gulf and operate in the Indian Ocean as Finn has pointed out. If such a scenario did occur the USAF would provide AWACS and Tankers.

I tend to agree that the greatest threat to the USN would be Iran's Klio subs, and (probably) her cache of sophisticated EM-52 and EM-53 bottom-tethered mines. Apparently these mines can be laid weeks / months before awaiting the USN ships , lying dormant up to 120 metres deep.

Newer versions reportedly can be laid up to 300 metres deep and have a lifespan of 400 days before self destruction. Not sure which versions China sold to Iran - ( Not sure WHY did China have to sell such mines to Iran even in the 90s ?? )

Their rocket-propelled 300-kg warhead is apparently capable of hitting the hull of its target vessel at speeds in excess of 80 meters per second.

These mines are reportedly deactivated by coded acoustic signals to allow the safe passage of friendly vessels, and again activated to prevent the transit of those of an enemy. Sounds neat if they work as advertised !


To further complicate matters , if the USN were to engage Iran , I doubt very much if Russia and China will stand by and do nothing . China has lots of Oil investments in Iran & will need to do something or the CP will lose its 'mandate'.

Putin has reportedly said that an attack on Iran constitutes an attack on Mother Russia. Then there is the added issue that Iran is a SCO member .

Asia Times Online :: Middle East News - Attack Iran and you attack Russia

Consequences of an Iran attack The Final Edition


Given's Putin propensity and image as a "tough guy " , I wouldn't downplay his threat . Besides , looking at the state of the Russian economy today , what does he have to lose ? I think he WILL go nuke.

If hostilities began in Iran , I think I'll move to New Zealand . Or Fiji . And wait for Judgement day. After that , I'll join John Connor's Resistant movement . I think the war against the machines will be easier . At least humans will finally be UNITED with a common cause , against a common enemy . T1000s, TXs -->watch out ..
-------
References :

http://www.janes.com/extracts/extrac.../juws0507.html

Chinese Mines Pose Taiwan Blockade Threat - SIGNAL Magazine

Chinese Defence Today - EM52 Fast-Rising Rocket Mine

Andrew Erickson, Lyle Goldstein and William Murray, "China's Undersea Sentries," Undersea Warfare, Vol 9, No 2 (Winter 2007).

Originally Posted by marclees

I tend to agree that the greatest threat to the USN would be Iran's Klio subs, and (probably) her cache of sophisticated EM-52 and EM-53 bottom-tethered mines. Apparently these mines can be laid weeks / months before awaiting the USN ships , lying dormant up to 120 metres deep.

Newer versions reportedly can be laid up to 300 metres deep and have a lifespan of 400 days before self destruction. Not sure which versions China sold to Iran - ( Not sure WHY did China have to sell such mines to Iran even in the 90s ?? )

I actually overheard a conversation today between some people who were talking about how their company makes mock traning mines for the DoD so we can assume the USN has some form of traning for the mine threat going on. Mines are an excellent delay/denial weapon but they are only useful so long as there is an active force protecting them.

On the subject of Iran and China, I can see them supporting Iran with intelligence and diplomatic action but not active involvment.

Regardless the geopolitical consequences of military action against Iran would be catastrophic for the United States, and recent events there greatly decrease the possibility of tha that happening anyway.

I tend to agree that the greatest threat to the USN would be Iran's Klio subs, and (probably) her cache of sophisticated EM-52 and EM-53 bottom-tethered mines. Apparently these mines can be laid weeks / months before awaiting the USN ships , lying dormant up to 120 metres deep.

Newer versions reportedly can be laid up to 300 metres deep and have a lifespan of 400 days before self destruction. Not sure which versions China sold to Iran - ( Not sure WHY did China have to sell such mines to Iran even in the 90s ?? )

Mines are a threat to the USN in the Gulf. That is why the USN has mine sweepers and CH-53s stationed in Bahrain to counter the mine threat. In the last 15 years or so the USN has really wratched up it's mine warfare capabilities. With more deployments of Mine Countermeasures Ships.

The US Navy -- Fact File

Naval Mine and Anti-Submarine Warfare Command

These mines are reportedly deactivated by coded acoustic signals to allow the safe passage of friendly vessels, and again activated to prevent the transit of those of an enemy. Sounds neat if they work as advertised !

All an adversary would have to do is to acquire the coded signals, which is very, very easily done in a variety of ways.

Originally Posted by FriedRiceNSpice

All an adversary would have to do is to acquire the coded signals, which is very, very easily done in a variety of ways.

Ok ..I'll bite..How does one acquire the mines signal codes??

Simply track Iranian ship movements with SSNs, and record any anomalies in the acoustic signatures of the vessels. These can be compiled into a database, where one can use an algorithm to detect unusual patterns in the acoustics.
Else, use intelligence assets to either intercept or steal the acoustic codes.

Here is the conumdrum of mine warfare. Mines have adjustable sensitivity to take into account the possibility the enemy force of ships is degaussed. For a mine to be effective it must explode very close aboard the targeted ship. If sensitivity is set low, a degaussed ship may pass right by without triggering the magnetic trigger. Set the sensitivity high enough to sense a degaussed ship, and one that isn't degaussed will detonate the mine at too great a distance to do damage. One could in theory make the mine field denser but there is a practical limit to this as mines are not cheap and limitless in quantity. A nation could have a very few really dense mine fields or many more less densely populated fields.
Btw, if you want to know what a naval conflict between Iran and the USN would look like, simply review Operation Praying Mantis. From the Iranian perspective that was an all out response. They threw everything they had at the US and lost badly. In the 1980's the USN and the Iranian's, mainly the IRG, fought running battles just about every week. There was a huge night engagement with over forty IRG gunboats that attacked a US Army floating base in the Arab Gulf ( or Persian Gulf depending on your orientation ). The US Army had two such bases built out of oil support barges, and armored. The Iranians lost badly, not anticipating the US Army also operates it's own armed patrol craft.
Kilo's are highly over rated, an old and noisy design the USN has had many opportunities to study. Poland had them so you can assume the USN has hands on with them at sea.

Ambivalent stated;

Btw, if you want to know what a naval conflict between Iran and the USN would look like, simply review Operation Praying Mantis.

wiki gives an excellent account of Operation Praying Mantis.

Operation Praying Mantis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Operation Praying Mantis was an April 18, 1988 attack by U.S. naval forces in retaliation for the Iranian mining of the Persian Gulf and the subsequent damage to an American warship.

On April 14, the guided missile frigate USS Samuel B. Roberts struck a mine while deployed in the Persian Gulf as part of Operation Earnest Will, the 1987-88 convoy missions in which U.S. warships escorted reflagged Kuwaiti oil tankers to protect them from Iranian attacks. The explosion put a 25-foot hole in the Roberts' hull and nearly sank it. The crew saved their ship with no loss of life, and Roberts was towed to Dubai on April 16.

After the mining, U.S. Navy divers recovered other mines in the area. When the serial numbers were found to match those of mines seized along with the Iran Ajr the previous September, U.S. military officials planned a retaliatory operation against Iranian targets in the Persian Gulf.

The battle, the largest for American naval forces since World War II,[1] sank two Iranian warships and three armed speedboats. It also marked the first anti-ship surface-to-surface missile engagement in U.S. Navy history.

The attack by the U.S. helped pressure Iran to agree to a ceasefire with Iraq later that summer, ending the eight-year conflict between the Persian Gulf neighbors

On April 14th 1988 the Americans attacked with several groups of surface warships, plus aircraft from the carrier USS Enterprise (CVN-65), and her ASW/AAW escort USS Truxtun (CGN-35). The action began with coordinated strikes by two surface groups. One group, consisting of the destroyers USS Merrill (DD 976) and USS Lynde McCormick (DDG 8), plus the amphibious transport dock USS Trenton (LPD-14), neutralized the Sassan oil platform. The Iranians on the platform were given the opportunity to abandon it for a tugboat waiting alongside, but instead opened fire on Merrill, whose auto-loading 5-inch, 54-caliber guns quickly destroyed the smaller, platform-mounted Iranian gun with artillery shells. Immediately afterward, U.S. Marines from Marine Air-Ground Task Force (MAGTF) 2-88 fast-roped onto the Sassan platform, gathered intelligence, and set explosive charges to render it unusable. The other group, which included a guided missile cruiser and two frigates, attacked the Sirri oil platform.

Iran responded by dispatching Boghammar speedboats to attack various targets in the Persian Gulf, including an American-flagged supply ship and a Panamanian-flagged ship. After these attacks, A-6E Intruder aircraft from the VA-95 "Green Lizards" were directed to the speedboats by an American frigate. The two aircraft, piloted by Lieutenant Commander James Engler and Lieutenant Paul Webb, dropped Rockeye cluster bombs on the speedboats, sinking one and damaging several others, which then fled to the Iranian-controlled island of Abu Musa.

Action continued to escalate. Joshan, an Iranian Combattante II Kaman-class fast attack craft, challenged USS Wainwright (CG-28) and Surface Action Group Charlie, firing a Harpoon missile at them.[citation needed] The USS Simpson (FFG-56) responded to the challenge by firing two Standard missiles, while Wainwright followed with one Standard missile.[citation needed] The attacks destroyed the Iranian ship's superstructure but did not immediately sink it, so USS Bagley (FF-1069) fired a Harpoon of its own; the missile did not find the target. The Wainwright of SAG Charlie closed on the Joshan, destroying it with its five-inch gun.

Two Iranian F-4 fighters then approached the Wainwright. One fighter left the area soon after the cruiser placed its 55B Fire Control Radar in search mode. The second fighter made a low-altitude approach towards the warship, which fired two SM-2 missiles at it. The first missile malfunctioned, but the second missile found its mark. The Wainwright was credited with downing the F-4 Phantom.[citation needed]

Fighting continued when the Iranian frigate IS Sahand (F74) departed Bandar Abbas and challenged elements of an American surface group. The frigate was spotted by two VA-95 A-6Es while they were flying surface combat air patrol for USS Joseph Strauss (DDG-16).

Iranian frigate IS Sahand (F74) burning from bows to stern on April 18, 1988 after being attacked.

Sahand fired missiles at the A-6Es, and the Intruders replied with two Harpoons and four laser-guided Skipper bombs. USS Joseph Strauss added a Harpoon. Most, if not all, of the U.S. weapons hit the Iranian ship.

Fires blazing on Sahand's decks eventually reached her munitions magazines, causing an explosion that sank the ship. Despite the loss of Sahand, one of Iran's most modern ships, the Iranian navy continued to fight. Late in the day, a sister ship, IS Sabalan (F73), departed from its berth and fired a surface-to-air missile at several A-6Es from VA-95. Intruder pilot Engler dropped a laser-guided bomb on Sabalan, leaving the ship dead in the water. The Iranian frigate, stern partially submerged, was taken in tow by an Iranian tug. VA-95's aircraft, as ordered, did not continue the attack. Engler was awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross by Admiral William J. Crowe, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, for these actions against the Sabalan and the Iranian gunboats.