Modern Carrier Battle Group..Strategies and Tactics

Array determines range, resolution, mutliscan capabilities etc. Software (powered by adequate computing power) not only determines tracking of targets and commanding the planes but also has a hand in resolution, filtering, range, etc.
With computing power rising so fast in last decades, military is hard pressed to keep up. I would expect that wedgetail for australia has actually better capabilities than regular US awacs. Only because it is newer. Any upgraded US awacs will then leapfrog it. And so on. Advanced hawkeye is sure to be more capable than today's E3, for example.

Capability gap is always dependant on a curve. When US made its first awacs and other countries had no awacs, that gap was infinite. Then other countries made their first awacs when US was already modernizing theirs. A gap was always there but it's consequences weren't always the same. As computers take over more and more, govt sponsored apparatus is too slow to react to changes. It always changes in fairly large increments, instead of continuous rise. Furthermore, there is a practical limit of how much more useful it is tracking 100X over X number of targets.

No one is suggesting that US will be matched in tech anytime soon. But it is the nature of the technological development along a curve that signals the gap in practice is getting smaller. It will never be reached without investments bigger than what US has now, but it will get closer.

^ Yes, the technological lead (in civilian areas also) the US once enjoyed has greatly eroded since the end of the Cold War. This is not 1960 anymore. East Asian countries in general have a high level of research and development.

If China wants to sink a CVBG from the air, it can make use of UAV's. In fact, that is probably why China is so interested in UAV's. So China would have multiple types of assets on the coastline hunting for carriers -- KJ-2000's, Y-8's, maritime patrol aircrafts, and UAV's. Send in the UAV's to confirm the location. It doesn't matter if they get shot down. Once you have a general location, assemble a strike group of Flankers and JH-7A's with ASM's. Also direct Shang class nuclear attack submarines to that location. With sufficient numbers, and a satellite constellation for communication and control (which China won't have until 2009), all these assets could launch dozens of ASM simultaneously. In that scenario, a sole CVBG would not survive, and even two CVBG's would be hurting bad -- after the initial strike.

If China wants to sink a CVBG from the air, it can make use of UAV's

Roger, Which UAV would the PLA deploy against a CSG? The Harppy? And how many would it take to disable a USN CSG? Afterall some will be destroyed in the attack.

So China would have multiple types of assets on the coastline hunting for carriers -- KJ-2000's, Y-8's, maritime patrol aircrafts, and UAV's. Send in the UAV's to confirm the location. It doesn't matter if they get shot down. Once you have a general location, assemble a strike group of Flankers and JH-7A's with ASM's.

As you may know USN CSG's do not patrol in littoral waters. They are generally 200+ miles out to sea. Not so easy to find.

Do you feel that the PLA would be willing to lose so many assets in order to have a chance to kill a USN CSG? Of what benefit would this be to the PLA to have sacraficed so many assets.

Also direct Shang class nuclear attack submarines to that location.

Just how are the PLAN subs going to penatrate USN ASW in a real war? Not one contrived on a computer or in a war game?

Originally Posted by Roger604

So China would have multiple types of assets on the coastline hunting for carriers -- KJ-2000's, Y-8's, maritime patrol aircrafts, and UAV's.

If the US were aware that a war time condition existed, the carrier would be well off shore and operating under very limited or no electronic emission conditions. They would also be making use of decoy positions for missiles traps. I do not think the PLAAF or PLAN in its current state, could find a US carrier strike group in such conditions without a lot of luck (something they do not want to depend on) or committing a huge force to the effort.

Originally Posted by Roger604

Send in the UAV's to confirm the location. It doesn't matter if they get shot down.

Saying this and doing it are two different things. 1st, they have to have a general location, which as I mentioned above, would be extremely difficult. Then, getting any UAV close enough to an alert carrier group is going to be a wholly different matter. Carrier based aircraft and carrier assets along the threat axis will probably ensure that no exisitng UAV would get close enough to tag the carrier itself.

Originally Posted by Roger604

Once you have a general location, assemble a strike group of Flankers and JH-7A's with ASM's.

The carrier is not going to be sitting there waiting for the enemy strike groups. Again, such a airborne enemy strike group, even if it knew the general location, would still have to aquire the exact position and then penetrate close enough to the carrier to launch their weapons. Fighter aircraft, missile traps, the AEGIS system, close in defenses, all are built to prevent this very thing. It would be playing to the absolute strength of the US carrier strike group. With literally hundreds of missiles and dozens of aircraft, and moving at a rapid pace in an erradicate course...this is an almost impossible task without committing much of the PLAN's, PLAAF, or any other nations defense assets.

I would recommend getting and reading the book, "The Sixth Battle" for a great fictional expose on this very thing. A great read and a good indication on the difficulties and cost required for such an endeavor.

Originally Posted by Roger604

Also direct Shang class nuclear attack submarines to that location.

For the same reasons, an even more difficulty task. Unless those subs happen to be in the perfect position already (very unlikely, like a needle in a haystack happening to be in the perfect position to thread a loop in a button that is tossed into the haystack), those subs are going to have to transit at high speed to have any chance of interceptring the carrier...which means they will be heard and prosecuted by the very ample carrier ant-sub forces, from the air, from the surface of the ocean, and beneath the ocean with the carrier strike group's own attack subs.

Originally Posted by Roger604

With sufficient numbers, and a satellite constellation for communication and control (which China won't have until 2009), all these assets could launch dozens of ASM simultaneously. In that scenario, a sole CVBG would not survive, and even two CVBG's would be hurting bad -- after the initial strike.

Well, they would have to have a huge number of aircraft and vessles. Any satellite assets would be dealt withg by the US Air Force's (and the US Navy's) anti-satellite capabilities...unless we are talking about a one time, surprise attack.

Dozens of missiles is probably not enough...more like scores would be required. And even if the agressor nation were capable of expending the resource and getting through to one American carrier...then they would have to deal with several carriers on the next go round but with a highly reduced number of assets of their own to contend with it. IOW, they would then pay an even more tremendous price than it already cost for getting at and damaging or destroying the one.

Unless and until a nation like China or someone else, achieves near parity in terms of numbers of carriers, escort vessels, submarines, and aircraft to committ to such an endeavor such that they can lose a large number and have enough to then face the even greater force coming to retaliate...I do not believe such a scenario will be attempted by a large nation state.

I am not saying that those conditions cannot be arrived at...just that they are not arrived at to this point, or in the near future.

You don't have to sink a carrier to put it out of commission. Look what happened to the USS Cole! That's a classic example of "assymetric responce".
If proffesional frogmen/commandos are emplyoed in place like Suez canal or Strait of Malacca (were all ships must slow down), and/or a medium/big ship is rammed against CV/CVN, you can forget about that carrier launching planes for a long time. I remember seeing many Asian cargo ships underway & at anchor off Singapore, particularly a N.Korean merchant ship at anchor with someone on the bridge looking at us heading to the Persian Gulf with binoculars. How long it would take for that guy to send a message out to their HQ or PLAN?
see my post here-
All About The Chinese Aircraft Carrier Thread

Originally Posted by BLUEJACKET

You don't have to sink a carrier to put it out of commission. Look what happened to the USS Cole! That's a classic example of "assymetric responce".
If proffesional frogmen/commandos are emplyoed in place like Suez canal or Strait of Malacca (were all ships must slow down), and/or a medium/big ship is rammed against CV/CVN, you can forget about that carrier launching planes for a long time. I remember seeing many Asian cargo ships underway & at anchor off Singapore, particularly a N.Korean merchant ship at anchor with someone on the bridge looking at us heading to the Persian Gulf with binoculars. How long it would take for that guy to send a message out to their HQ or PLAN?
see my post here-
All About The Chinese Aircraft Carrier Thread

That is assuming that:

1.) You are on a peacetime footing
2.) A carrier has to be on port near your base of operations (highly unlikely in war time)
3.) Such an attack, if proven that it was sanctioned by another country, will be considered an act of war.
4.) Such an attack, if carried in a port of a third country, is considered an act of war by that country. It is not very polite to fight a war on the soil of a third party. In all likelyhood, that nation will side with the US because that nation has took it upon itself to protect the US ship when it enters its borders.
5.) In times of war, each port is protected by teams of US coast guard and navy personnel. They have trained dolphins that specifically hunt frogsmen.
6.) You are grasping for straws here. Assymetric warfare can only do so much and each attack will only work once. A carrier can hit back many times.

Originally Posted by IDonT

That is assuming that:

1.) You are on a peacetime footing
2.) A carrier has to be on port near your base of operations (highly unlikely in war time)
3.) Such an attack, if proven that it was sanctioned by another country, will be considered an act of war.
4.) Such an attack, if carried in a port of a third country, is considered an act of war by that country. It is not very polite to fight a war on the soil of a third party. In all likelyhood, that nation will side with the US because that nation has took it upon itself to protect the US ship when it enters its borders.
5.) In times of war, each port is protected by teams of US coast guard and navy personnel. They have trained dolphins that specifically hunt frogsmen.
6.) You are grasping for straws here. Assymetric warfare can only do so much and each attack will only work once. A carrier can hit back many times.

It's all right using your level of analysis. But those assumptions may not be 100% correct. WWII was already at least 2 years old when Pearl Harbor was attacked. Even without attacking in someone else's territorial waters/ports, there are plenty of places in international straits for an ambush.

Originally Posted by BLUEJACKET

It's all right using your level of analysis. But those assumptions may not be 100% correct. WWII was already at least 2 years old when Pearl Harbor was attacked. Even without attacking in someone else's territorial waters/ports, there are plenty of places in international straits for an ambush.

It is practically impossible to ambush a US carrier strike group on a war footing. Why?

To ambush something means that you have to know where and when a carrier will be at a particular time so you can set up your ambush. That means you need to be able to track it and extrapolate its next move. If it is difficult to find a carrier in a non-ambush scenario, assuming parity of forces, imagine how difficult it would be to find a carrier in a ambush scenario. A carrier will never go on a confined body of water in wartime, unless such area has been effectively clear of enemy activity. USN Admirals do know how to do their jobs.

WWII started at Pearl Harbor for the US.

Again your grasping for straws here.

Originally Posted by IDonT

WWII started at Pearl Harbor for the US

WWII started in 1937 when the Japanese invaded China. It was pushing five years old when the US finally joined the party. But the you were three years late for the First world war too...

Originally Posted by IDonT

It is practically impossible to ambush a US carrier strike group on a war footing. Why?

To ambush something means that you have to know where and when a carrier will be at a particular time so you can set up your ambush. That means you need to be able to track it and extrapolate its next move. If it is difficult to find a carrier in a non-ambush scenario, assuming parity of forces, imagine how difficult it would be to find a carrier in a ambush scenario. A carrier will never go on a confined body of water in wartime, unless such area has been effectively clear of enemy activity. USN Admirals do know how to do their jobs.

WWII started at Pearl Harbor for the US.

Again your grasping for straws here.

It's impossible to know for sure that there is no enemy activity in a given area. Noone is invincible. Carriers are predictable not only in narrow straits but also as they do circles during flight ops. The Titanic was unsinkable also, along with Lusitania. Who was grasping for straws then? Or when CV-64 lost 18 sailors fighting fire in the boiler machinery room, while all topside were at their "abandon ship" stations? Or during fire on USS Forrestall?

Originally Posted by BLUEJACKET

The Titanic was unsinkable also, along with Lusitania. Who was grasping for straws then? Or when CV-64 lost 18 sailors fighting fire in the boiler machinery room, while all topside were at their "abandon ship" stations? Or during fire on USS Forrestall?

But we're not talking about civilian cruise liners, or accidents or operational mistakes by the carrier personnel themselves that cause damage or sinking. We are talking about an aggressor nation finding and then attacking and either mission killing or sinking a carrier at force of arms. That's an ENTIRELY different animal than the examples you just cited. Those examples are, IMHO, wholly unrelated to what this thread is about and therefore amount, again, IMHO, to strawmen arguements as regards what IDONT mentioned.

Now, as I have said...it is not impossible...but in the current environment and with current technology stacked up against US carriers, it is would be very, very difficult to accomplish...and then the consequences, even if somehow they could accomplish it would likely mean that that nation no longer had any Naval or other major military capability soon thereafter.

With time...if the US continues to draw down, and others build up...anything is possible. But it would take a long time to get to that point (short of some tremndous leap in technology that surprises evryone...and that is also possible, for example a deployed, reliable, long range, smart weapon-supercavitating system)...outside of something like that, I do not believe the US Navy will be idly letting others surpass them if they can help it.

Originally Posted by BLUEJACKET

It's impossible to know for sure that there is no enemy activity in a given area. No one is invincible. Carriers are predictable not only in narrow straits but also as they do circles during flight ops. The Titanic was unsinkable also, along with Lusitania. Who was grasping for straws then? Or when CV-64 lost 18 sailors fighting fire in the boiler machinery room, while all topside were at their "abandon ship" stations? Or during fire on USS Forrestall?

BLUEJACKET when were 18 sailors liked on the Connie? They never went to abandon ship stations. That's an old sea story. This is what really happened.

August 2, 1988 off the US West Coast USS CONSTELLATION suffers an engine room fire which forces the carrier to cancel scheduled operations and return to San Diego, Calif. The fire, believed to be caused by a fuel oil leak, begins with an explosion in one of the ship's four engine rooms around noon and is finally extinguished about 9 hours later after several subsequent explosions caused by heat from the initial fire. 20 sailors suffer burns, bruises, and smoke inhalation .

As far as the Forrestal is concerned read the history of the ship's fire on 29 July 1967. Where does it say that Capt Beling called away abandon ship?? Read any book or article about the tragic fire. He never did call to go to abandon ship stations. No way, no how. You listened to way too many sea stories. You should know better.

http://www.forrestal.org/fidfacts/page13.htm

http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/...stal-fire.html

No ship is unsinkable. You should also know that civillian ships are not built to the same standards as Naval vessels. Those ships had large open spaces and no where near the compartmentation of a USN CV. Of course you should know that you posted you were on board CV-63 & CVN-71.

No one is posting an CV is impossible to sink. Just very difficult.

[QUOTE=bd popeye;46293]BLUEJACKET when were 18 sailors killed on the Connie? They never went to abandon ship stations. That's an old sea story. ...As far as the Forrestal is concerned read the history of the ship's fire on 29 July 1967. Where does it say that Capt Beling called away abandon ship?? Read any book or article about the tragic fire. He never did call to go to abandon ship stations. No way, no how. You listened to way too many sea stories. You should know better.
No ship is unsinkable. You should also know that civillian ships are not built to the same standards as Naval vessels. Those ships had large open spaces and no where near the compartmentation of a USN CV. Of course you should know that you posted you were on board CV-63 & CVN-71.
QUOTE]
Captain Jack J. Samar, Jr., Commanding Officer of USS Kitty Hawk (CV 63), who was on CV-64 at the time, told us about that fire. http://www.airpac.navy.mil/news/pr1997/pr97-008.asp
Would he lie to the whole crew?
I never implied that Forrestal was ready to be abandoned. That fire was not due to enemy action, but similar one could happen if the flight deck full of planes recieves mortar/RPG rounds while transiting the Suez or Singapore.
Of course I know the difference between a warship and a cruiseliner- I've been on both types, as a sailor & a passenger, respectively. But as those liners were louded as unsinkable I decided to mention them, since the our CBGs are also described as "fortesses at sea". That may be so, but even the most impragnable fortress has its weaknesses.
Did we bomb Yemeni & Jordanian forces after our ships were attacked in port? America has too many enemies around the world, in and out of uniform- in a conflict with any state power that state could use their own or other personnel, and their backers/origin may not be positively IDed for a long time.

Captain Jack J. Samar, Jr., Commanding Officer of USS Kitty Hawk (CV 63), who was on CV-64 at the time, told us about that fire.

Perhaps you misunderstood the Capt when he was speaking. 18 sailors killed is a disaster? Probally 18 sailors hurt. I've searched the web and found no such information. I lived in San Diego at the time of the fire and was on active duty at NAS Miramar AIMD the time. If such a tragedy occuried I would have known about it. I had shipmates that worked for me that were onboard at the time. I just remember them comming back early from an at sea period. The incident would have certainly would have been front page news.

http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/...tellation.html

Maybe he meant the Kitty Kawk on Dec 11, 1973? I remember that. They word was the bodies were piled up by the escape trunk. They could not get out. Grewsome.

http://navysite.de/cvn/cv63.htm

December 11, 1973. Seven crewmen were killed in a boiler-room blaze. The fire could be extinguished by the crew, and KITTY HAWK was towed to Subic Bay, Philippines, for repairs.

As an added note there was a crash on the flight deck on the Nimitz in 1981 that killed 14 sailors. I remember that being headline news on CNN.

http://navysite.de/cvn/cvn68.html

http://navysite.de/cvn/cv64.htm

Did we bomb Yemeni & Jordanian forces after our ships were attacked in port? America has too many enemies around the world, in and out of uniform- in a conflict with any state power that state could use their own or other personnel, and their backers/origin may not be positively IDed for a long time

With that I will agree. That is why the War on Terror will last for a long...long..time.

War sucks.